February 2, 2017 — Meeting Minutes

1

MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARY 2, 2017

ROLL CALL: Mel Disney

Susan M. Istenes, AICP, Planning Director Liza Streett

Anna Krane, Planner Nicki Herrington

Ken Heinz, Acting City Attorney Rick Bliss Chairman Gary Soule

Chairman Soule called the meeting to order at 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. All Board members and city staff introduced themselves.

The minutes of the January 5, 2017 meeting was presented for approval. There were several minor revisions/typos that were noted. The recording secretary indicated that she would make the noted corrections. The minutes were then approved, as amended, after having been previously distributed to each member.

APPEAL FROM BRIAN SCHLUETER, OWNER, FOR THE PROPERTY ADDRESSED 8008 VENETIAN DRIVE

Brian Schlueter, owner, was in attendance at the meeting.

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

Chairman Soule asked if the City had any exhibits to present with regard to this appeal.

Acting City Attorney Heinz presented the following exhibits:

A. City of Clayton Code of Ordinances & City Master Plan B. Application for Zoning Review C. Appeal Application D. Drawings submitted by applicant E. Staff Report

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

Mr. Schlueter replied “no”.

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

2

Mr. Schlueter informed the members that his wife could not attend tonight. He indicated that he and his wife entered into a contract back in October of 2014 with the Mehlmans (developer) to purchase the property and a major interior renovation ensued to convert the 2-family structure into a single-family structure; the interior work was completed in June of 2015. He noted that after the interior renovation was complete, they realized the exterior didn’t match the interior (set up for a 2-family with two separate entrances to two front doors) and asked the Mehlmans to credit them a small amount of money for exterior renovations. The Mehlmans agreed and he and his wife then hired a landscape designer.

Mr. Schlueter then referred to two letters of support and four photos of his property.

Chairman Soule noted that these documents will be marked as Applicant’s Group Exhibit 1.

Mr. Schlueter indicated that as they prepared to close in June, he was told that the front lawn needed to be completed before the permits would be closed out. He stated that he visited City Hall and showed Jackie Williams the [exterior] plan, to which she responded that everything was fine since flatwork did not require a permit. He noted that she was very nice and very helpful throughout the permitting process and that he went ahead and proceeded with the exterior work per the plan as he thought it was okay to do so, based on his conversation with Jackie. He then stated that there were grading issues that were fixed [garage had previously leaked] and that these plans improve both the appearance and value of the property. He stated that his next door neighbor, Stan, is happy that his basement no longer leaks. He indicated that the plans added 2.9% coverage to the site for an overall coverage percentage of 66.1% (previous coverage of 63.2%). He informed the members that he discussed the situation with Louis Clayton [former City Planner] who basically told him to simply remove some concrete. He stated that he is here this evening to request a coverage modification so the permits can be closed; he added that he does not want this to negatively impact the Mehlmans.

Chairman Soule stated that the presentation was thorough and well described.

Mel Disney asked Ken if the property owner is responsible for ensuring the laws are followed.

Ken Heinz replied “yes”.

Mel Disney asked what percentage of the neighborhood properties has two front sidewalks.

Mr. Schlueter indicated that he did not know the answer to that question, but that there are a lot of 2 family structures in the neighborhood.

Mel Disney commented that he assumed that he [Mr. Schlueter] requested two front sidewalks.

Nicki Herrington referred to the side sidewalk leading to the front door.

Mel Disney stated that the property originally had two front sidewalks leading to two entrance doors. He asked Mr. Schlueter if he still wants both sidewalks.

3

Mr. Schlueter replied “yes”, adding that he likes the way the yard is designed. He questioned if it would be enough if they were to remove a portion of the second sidewalk [enough to get back down to the original 63.2% coverage).

Mel Disney stated that he wasn’t sure.

Mr. Schlueter indicated that he would have to remove about 210 square feet to get back down to the 63.2%.

Nicki Herrington asked staff about the coverage issue.

Susan Istenes stated that coverage [for this site] is limited to 55% which regulation is triggered when projects require site plan review, i.e. major additions or new construction. The Plan Commission can allow up to an additional 5%. The practice has been that the City has allowed non-conformities, including coverage, to remain as-is, but not be increased if a project is done that does not require site plan (Plan Commission) review, as was the case here. Because the current regulations maximize coverage at 55% (with PC approval of up to an additional 5%), the variance being requested here is 11.1%.

Nicki Herrington asked if 63.2% satisfies everybody.

Susan Istenes stated that remaining at 63.2% would be consistent with the City’s policy.

Liza Streett stated that she understands why the owner desires a sidewalk from the driveway to the house and wondered if incorporating stepping stones would be a good replacement to what’s there now. She stated that the yard is beautifully designed.

Chairman Soule agreed, stating that he walked the property and noticed a cooking area and outdoor beverage container.

Rick Bliss stated he sees two remedies here: one would be to create a hardship for the owner by forcing him to dig up concrete or, two, to grant the variance; he does not see an alternative.

Aaron Fausz, 606 South Meramec Avenue (corner of South Meramec and Venetian), spoke in favor of the requested variance. He stated that he looks directly into the Schlueter’s yard and that they have one of the nicest looking yards in the neighborhood.

Mel Disney stated that a third alternative would be to submit documents to the Plan Commission for their review.

Susan Istenes stated that the Plan Commission could only grant up to 60% and that the original coverage on this site already exceeded 60%. She reiterated that staff allows revisions to the exterior provided the amount of coverage is not exceeded; unless the project requires appearance before the Plan Commission at which time current regulations are enforced. She stated that if this Board denies the variance application, the owner will only be required to reduce coverage

4

down to its original percentage of 63.2%; granting this variance would remedy the entire non- conformity.

Chairman Soule indicated that he understood. He asked staff if it is typical for older homes to have more than 55% lot coverage.

Susan Istenes replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if staff agrees that the site revisions have improved the run-off situation.

Susan Istenes replied by stating that the letter we received indicates that the water drainage issues have improved; however, typically more coverage results in more run-off.

Chairman Soule asked if staff agrees that the impact of additional coverage does not impair the public’s safety.

Susan Istenes stated that she agrees safety is not impacted.

Nicki Herrington questioned if granting this will set a precedent, because the only greenspace left on this property is some in the front yard and a 3-foot strip along the driveway. She stated that she hopes it does not set a precedent.

Susan Istenes stated that the point is well said and that generally speaking, each application is considered on its own merit. She emphasized that staff does not encourage variance requests and perhaps that is why the former Planner (Louis Clayton) advised the owner to remove some of the existing concrete.

Chairman Soule indicated that Louis had his responsibilities as a City official and that the burden is on the applicant/owner.

Mr. Schlueter reminded the members that he did personally visit City Hall to inquire about the proposed exterior renovations prior to them being implemented.

Chairman Soule stated that goes to Susan’s comment about each project being considered on its own merit.

Nicki Herrington asked Mr. Schlueter if the concrete was already installed when he spoke with Louis.

Mr. Schlueter replied “yes”.

Chairman Soule asked if he is attempting to close out the permit which was issued to the Mehlmans.

Mr. Schlueter replied “yes”.

5

Mel Disney questioned why the variance being requested is for 11.1% instead of 2.9%.

Susan Istenes explained that the existing coverage for this property was already non-compliant before the exterior alterations were performed, and because the City cannot find any records showing allowable coverage of 63.2%, an 11.1% variance is needed.

Mel Disney asked if the lot coverage, even after the renovations, were to remain at 63.2%; there would be no reason or need to be here requesting a variance.

Susan Istenes concurred.

Mel Disney asked if the owner would only be required to get the lot back to the 63.2% coverage if the variance is denied.

Susan Istenes replied “yes”.

Nicki Herrington commented that 229 square feet of coverage would need to be removed to get back down to 63.2%.

Mel Disney commented that is why earlier he asked about the neighborhood.

Susan Istenes advised the members that this is a tricky situation because the structure did not come down and the work done to it did not require approval by the Plan Commission or Architectural Review Board, which affords the opportunity to bring the property to current standards and again, this was not the case here.

Chairman Soule stated that the goal of a green city is a worthwhile one and this is one reason the Code has provisions for variances; he would submit that the owner has a persuasive argument.

Nicki Herrington commented that the architect in this case did not do his due diligence.

Mr. Schlueter stated that he never had the discussion with the architect.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Soule called for a motion.

Rick Bliss made a motion to grant the variance as requested (an 11.1% coverage variance). The motion was seconded by Liza Streett.

Nicki Herrington asked if she could abstain.

Ken Heinz informed Nicki that generally, a member only abstains due to a conflict of interest or because not enough information was provided to make an informed decision; otherwise it is his/her duty to vote.

Chairman Soule reminded the members that 4 yes votes are needed for a variance to be granted and an abstention should be noted ahead of time so an Alternate Member can be secured.

6

Ken Heinz commented that in a perfect world that is the way things should operate.

The motion and second to grant the variance received the following roll call vote: Ayes: Rick Bliss, Liza Streett, Nicki Herrington and Chairman Soule. Nays: Mel Disney. Motion carries and the variance is granted by a vote of 4 to 1.

Chairman Soule asked if there will be a meeting in March.

Kathy Scott indicated that a March meeting is likely.

Being no further business for this Board of Adjustment this evening, the meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.

_________________________ Recording Secretary