Citation in context
January 4, 2018 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
1
MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 4, 2018
ROLL CALL: Mel Disney
Anna Krane, Planner Rick Bliss
Ken Heinz, Acting City Attorney Liza Streett Nicki Herrington Chairman Gary Soule
Chairman Soule called the meeting to order at approximately 5:00 p.m. He noted that there is one item for consideration this evening and that there was not a full complement of the Board (5 members) in attendance this evening and asked the applicant if she wished to continue or postpone consideration until there was a full complement. The applicant indicated that she wanted to proceed this evening. The Board members and city staff introduced themselves.
The minutes of the November 2, 2017 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved as submitted.
APPEAL FROM JONATHAN & NAOMI SHANKER, OWNERS, FOR A 3.7-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 21.2-FOOT REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK (FOR DECKS) TO ALLOW A DECK AFTER EXPANSION TO BE LOCATED 17.5 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE – 211 TOPTON WAY
Naomi Shanker, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.
Those wishing to speak were sworn in by Ken Heinz, Acting City Attorney.
Chairman Soule asked if the City had any exhibits to present with regard to this appeal.
City Attorney Heinz presented the following exhibits:
A. City of Clayton Code of Ordinances & Master Plan B. Application for Zoning Review & Zoning Review Denial Letter C. Application for Appeal D. Survey and site plan submitted by applicant E. Staff Report
Chairman Soule asked the applicant if she had any objections to these exhibits being made part of the record.
Ms. Shanker replied “no”.
Chairman Soule noted that these exhibits will be entered into the record.
Shanker replied “no”. Chairman Soule noted that these exhibits will be entered into the record.
2
Ms. Shanker introduced herself to the members. She explained that they want to extend the foot- print of their existing deck by four feet into the unusable area of their yard. She continued by stating that they have a family of six and they would like a larger deck and that this expansion won’t have an impact on air or water or light.
Mel Disney asked the current size of the deck.
Ms. Shanker indicated that the deck is currently 12 X 18; they want it to be 16 x 18.
Mel Disney asked how large the family is.
Ms. Shanker reiterated that they have a family of 6.
Mel Disney asked about extending the deck further lengthwise versus out.
Ms. Shanker stated that if they did that, it would impede access to the lower level bedroom.
Mel Disney commented that this could be better for the family. He asked if there were examples of similar decks in the neighborhood.
Ms. Shanker stated that her immediate neighbors have both a patio and enclosed porch. She added that the representatives from decking companies she has spoken with have stated that 12 feet is small and she doesn’t feel that a 4 foot extension is too much of an encroachment.
Mel Disney asked if Ms. Shanker was aware that the deck takes up greenspace as indicated in the staff report.
Ms. Shanker stated that she was aware of that; however, the area the deck would cover is yard space they don’t use.
Mel Disney stated that the City’s regulations respect greenspace.
Ms. Shanker stated that they’ve made more greenspace by removing trees and a tie wall.
Mel Disney indicated that trees are considered greenspace.
Nicki Herrington commented that the staff reports states that the deck is currently 10 X 18.
Planner Krane stated that staff’s report was based off the submitted property survey.
Chairman Soule concurred that the staff report states it is 10 X 18.
Planner Krane stated that staff’s report was based off the submitted property survey. Chairman Soule concurred that the staff report states it is 10 X 18.
3
Nicki Herrington stated that 10 feet is skinny. She added that because it’s off the ground water will be able to seep through it.
Ms. Shanker stated that currently there is mud and some rocks under the deck; she plans to add more rocks.
Liza Streett asked why a patio is impractical.
Ms. Shanker replied because of the house elevation.
Liza Streett asked about coverage.
Planner Krane indicated that above grade decks don’t count towards impervious coverage.
Liza Streett asked if this property is at its maximum coverage allowed.
Planner Krane indicated that although she did not run the numbers and would need to do a calculation, she believes that it is.
Rick Bliss asked if the existing deck is at the setback limit.
Planner Krane stated that it’s very close; it is 21.5 feet from the rear property line and it’s allowed to be 21.2 feet from the rear property line.
Rick Bliss commented that the owners probably wanted a larger deck when it was originally built.
Planner Krane agreed.
Chairman Soule commented that this is a relatively new house; he asked Ms. Shanker the age of her house.
Ms. Shanker replied “8 years”.
Rick Bliss commented that Ms. Shanker mentioned the hardship and practical difficulty being the shape of the lot; however, the shape of her lot is typical. He added that he is not sympathetic to her plight and questions how this would qualify for approval of a variance as it does not meet the criteria outlined by state law.
Acting City Attorney Heinz stated that Mr. Bliss’ statement that variances are mandated by state law is accurate.
Rick Bliss indicated that the City establishes regulations and that he’s not compelled to say that this passes the test.