September 6, 2018 — Meeting Minutes

1

MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 2, 2018

ROLL CALL: Rick Bliss

Anna Krane, Planner Liza Streett

Ken Heinz, Acting City Attorney Robert Denlow Mary DeBenedetti 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 a full complement of the Board (5 members) in attendance this evening. Chairman Soule noted that Mel Disney recently left this Board and he was a valuable member who served the Board well since 2003. He then announced that Nicki Herrington has resigned as a member and that Robert Denlow, former alternate member, is now a regular member. Because Mel Disney was the Vice-chairman, a new vice- chairman will need to be elected.

Liza Streett nominated Rick Bliss to serve as Vice-chairman. The nomination was seconded by Chairman Soule and unanimously approved by the Board. Rick Bliss will now serve as Vice- Chair.

The minutes of the January 4, 2018 meeting were presented for approval. The minutes were approved as submitted (with the exception of one correction in the spelling of Liza’s last name).

APPEAL FROM KARLA SNEATHEN ON BEHALF OF DAVID BAUMSTART, OWNER, FOR A 4-PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE MAXIMUM TOTAL LOT COVERAGE ALLOWANCE OF 55-PERCENT TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PATIO AND RETAINING WALL IN THE REAR YARD - 8411 KINGSBURY BLVD.

Karla Sneathen, contractor, was in attendance at the meeting.

Those wishing to speak were sworn in by Kathy Scott, Recording Secretary.

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

2

Chairman Soule asked the applicant if she had any objections to these exhibits being made part of the record.

Ms. Sneathen replied “no”.

Chairman Soule noted that these exhibits will be entered into the record.

Ms. Sneathen introduced herself to the members. She explained that the homeowner wants additional patio space for entertaining. She noted that the owners have experienced drainage problems and that’s why they want to change the grade and add a retaining wall which will result in flatter grade and allow drainage to run along the side. She noted that the owners would also like a fire pit. She asked if there were any questions.

Rick Bliss asked where the fire pit will be installed; he did not see it on the submitted drawing.

Ms. Sneathen indicated that the fire pit would be portable; it’s not on the drawing.

Rick Bliss asked if the proposed drainage system would be sufficient to handle the drainage.

Ms. Sneathen informed the members that her boss knows more about that; however, he recommended this system and has been in the business for 27 years.

Anna Krane informed the members that the drainage does not correspond with coverage.

Chairman Soule asked Planner Krane for confirmation that the construction of drains is a separate issue than that of the increased coverage/variance.

Anna Krane confirmed, adding that drainage mitigations can be added without the extra coverage.

Chairman Soule asked the applicant if the purpose of the drainage and landscaping is to address a water issue.

Ms. Sneathen replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked Ms. Sneathen if the owners are also asking for a larger patio.

Ms. Sneathen replied “yes”.

Liza Streett asked Planner Krane if the retaining wall adds to the coverage calculations.

Anna Krane replied “yes”.

Liza Streett asked the applicant if she had a breakdown of coverage.

Ms. Sneathen informed Liza that she could obtain that information.

3

Liza Streett asked the difference in elevation between the two yards.

Ms. Sneathen indicated that she did not know the number; however, the fence is 3-feet higher than the patio and the house itself is about 3-4 feet higher.

Chairman Soule asked if the stockade fence is staying or if it’s being removed.

Ms. Sneathen indicated that it is staying.

A discussion ensued about how much larger the patio is as proposed. Rick Bliss commented that it appears the patio is being extended from 10 to 18 feet. Ms. Sneathen stated that the existing patio is 18 X 14 and the owners want it to project out 2 more feet and the circle area out to 24- feet (an additional 10 feet).

Robert Denlow stated that he agreed that the water run-off is unrelated to the coverage increase; however, the property owner to the rear won’t complain because it’s up so high.

Liza Streett commented that coverage limitations are to preserve greenspace.

Robert Denlow stated that there’s a balance; the owners should enjoy their property. He noted that 10-feet is not that wide and that a larger patio could fix the water problem.

Mary DeBenedetti indicated that she had visited the property and that the patio is small and useless as is the yard. She suggested either removing the patio or allowing it to be increased to make it useful, but that she would like to see some bushes or trees or something like that; there’s nothing there now.

Ms. Sneathen explained the proposed landscaping to the members (referring to pictures that were included with the application). She noted that the bar-b-q area is under an eave.

Anna Krane stated that landscaping is not something this Board reviews.

Liza Streett asked about the water issue.

Anna Krane explained that no additional run-off from the site (as in all cases when projects are being reviewed) is permitted. She further explained that the Plan Commission can approve (at their discretion) up to 60% coverage for properties that are not in an Urban Design District, as this property is. She noted that Clayton Gardens has water problems.

Chairman Soule commented that drainage and coverage are separate issues.

Anna Krane noted that although she has not run the calculations, typically more coverage means more run-off.

Liza Streett stated that the plan indicates that the drains daylight.

4

Ms. Sneathen confirmed.

Rick Bliss, referring to the “alternatives” indicated on the application, stated that these owners purchased the property as it was and he has no sympathy for them in that respect.

Chairman Soule stated that the house was built in 2005 and the water problem was caused by the new construction behind them.

Ms. Sneathen asked the Board if they received a copy of a letter from the property owners.

The Board replied “yes”.

Ms. Sneathen asked if the City (Clayton) helps Clayton homeowners when they have water problems arising from University City properties.

Rick Bliss reiterated that the water issue is separate from the increase in coverage request.

Anna Krane explained that Clayton does not communicate with University City; however, University City property owners are notified by Clayton regarding potential/proposed work in Clayton (if they fall within our notification boundaries).

Ken Heinz stated that laws differ between municipalities.

Liza Streett commented that it’s difficult for her to decide without more information; she questions if a larger patio would create additional run-off and how much drainage the proposed French drain would handle.

Chairman Soule asked Planner Krane if a potential run-off problem {as a result of additional coverage} affects this Board’s decision.

Anna Krane noted that there are ways to solve water problems without more patio and that there are reasons there are coverage limitations.

Robert Denlow stated that they are only asking for a little more than 100 square feet of coverage; which is not much.

Mary DeBenedetti asked staff if the City will ensure run-off is addressed if this Board grants the variance.

Anna Krane replied by stating that all this Board can do is either approve or deny the variance request; drainage mitigation still needs City approval {by others}.

Mary DeBenedetti asked if MSD gets involved.

Anna Krane indicated that they don’t issue a permit, but it is closely tracked.

5

Chairman Soule asked if it is staff’s opinion that by not granting the variance, the homeowner would not be deprived reasonable use of the property.

Anna Krane replied “correct”.

Chairman Soule asked if it is staff’s belief that the proposed construction drains would result in more water draining to the street.

Anna Krane replied “yes”.

At this time, Chairman Soule called for a motion.

Robert Denlow made a motion to approve the impervious coverage variance as requested (a 4- percent increase in coverage to allow total lot coverage of 59-percent). The motion was seconded by Mary DeBenedetti and received the following roll call vote: Ayes: Robert Denlow, Mary DeBenedetti, Chairman Soule. Nays: Rick Bliss and Liza Streett. Motion fails.

The variance is denied.

Staff indicated that there will be a need for a meeting on September 6th Rick Bliss announced that he won’t be able to attend that meeting.

Being no further business for this Board of Adjustment this evening, the meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

_________________________ Recording Secretary