July 7, 2016

1

MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 7, 2016

ROLL CALL: Rick Bliss

Louis Clayton, Planner Mel Disney

Ken Heinz, Acting City Attorney Anne Martin Mary DeBenedetti Chairman Gary Soule

Chairman Soule called the meeting to order at 5:00. He welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that there is only 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 May 5, 2016 meeting were presented for approval. It was erroneously noted that Susan Istenes was listed as a staff member in attendance; Louis Clayton, Planner, was the staff member in attendance. Also, the first paragraph erroneously named Chairman “Disney instead of Chairman “Soule”. The recording secretary indicated that she would make the necessary changes. The minutes were then approved, as amended/corrected, after having been previously distributed to each member.

APPEAL FROM JOHN ODOM FOR THE PROPERTY AT 213 NORTH BEMISTON AVENUE

Chairman Soule verified that the applicant was in attendance.

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. Zoning Review Application & Denial Letter 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. Odom replied “no”.

2

Chairman Soule indicated that the exhibits would then be made part of the record.

Mr. Odom indicated that he had a new packet of information for distribution.

Chairman Soule indicated that it would be marked as Applicant’s Group Exhibit 1. Chairman Soule asked Mr. Odom to describe the Exhibit.

Mr. Odom explained that Mr. Osborne owns the adjoining unit addressed 211 and the two units share a common wall. He stated that the initial plan was for a large addition, which presented a problem so they have backed off significantly on the scope of the project. He stated that their new proposal still requires a variance, but not to the same degree; the previous proposal was for a 15-foot addition (he referred to the floor plan) and they are now only asking to square-off the back bay.

Louis Clayton indicated that staff has not seen this revised proposal before now and would need to look closely at the new plans.

Chairman Soule asked how this affects the agenda.

Acting City Attorney Heinz stated that as he understands it, the revised project is smaller and would require a lesser variance than the 6-foot as noticed so the notice is sufficient; however, the problem is that there is no benefit of staff review or a staff report for this new proposal. He informed the members that it was their choice whether to consider it or not.

Louis Clayton stated that he does not see an issue moving forward as this new request is for a significantly smaller variance.

Chairman Soule asked Louis if staff has no objection to moving forward with the new request.

Louis Clayton concurred.

Mr. Odom informed the members that they want to be good neighbors; that this is a much smaller request, noting that the bay window already encroaches and they aren’t proposing to go out any further.

Chairman Soule commented that the former request was for a 6-foot variance. He asked how much of a variance they are asking for now.

Mr. Odom indicated that it’s 2 ½ feet or so.

Rick Bliss asked if they are proposing going no further west than where the doors are currently.

Mr. Odom replied “yes”; adding that they just want to square off the corner. He stated the other side is outside the 6-foot setback, so that’s not an issue.

Rick Bliss referred to the enlarged plan sheet.

3

Mr. Odom stated that the site survey is the next page and that the new proposal does not require a modification to the party wall.

Anne Martin asked about the red lines on one of the sheets.

Mr. Odom informed the members to ignore the red lines.

Bill Osborne, owner of 211 North Bemiston, stated that overall, he is in favor of the variance based on what’s been presented tonight, as long as they don’t go back and ask again for a 15-foot addition.

Anne Martin asked for confirmation from the applicant that they are now asking for 4-square feet instead of 500-square-feet.

Mr. Odom replied “yes”.

Mr. Osborne stated that he just found this out today.

Mr. Odom stated that they are now not going any further than the French door.

Rick Bliss questioned how to phrase the motion.

Chairman Soule stated that they are now asking for only a 2.5-foot variance from the side yard setback requirement of 6 feet.

Louis Clayton asked if Mr. Odom was certain that they would not be asking for more than a 2.6- foot variance.

Chairman Soule informed Mr. Odom that this Board does not give “fill in the blank” variances and that is why an advance submittal is required. He stated that he is hesitant to proceed with this tonight.

Mr. Odom asked the members to look at the exhibit.

Chairman Soule asked Ken Heinz for advice.

Ken Heinz stated that an “intention” can’t be approved and recommended the applicant re-draw the plan and resubmit for a future meeting, unless the Board wants to delegate the authority to the Planner (Louis Clayton) especially considering everyone seems to be okay with the intent.

Anne Martin asked the applicant the purpose of gaining an additional 4 square feet; she asked what the hardship is.

Mr. Odom replied that they want to clean-up the floor plan.

4

Mel Disney commented that there is an application procedure in place and that this is not the proper format to ask for a variance. He noted that there is a dumpster on the property and asked staff if a dumpster permit had been issued.

Louis Clayton replied “yes”.

Mel Disney stated that it is his opinion that the proper procedure should be followed.

Rick Bliss noted that the owner’s last name is incorrect on the staff report; it reads “Mawes” and should read “Hawes”. He indicated that he shares Mel’s opinion on the proper way to apply for a variance.

Anne Martin agreed.

Mary DeBenedetti also agreed.

Chairman Soule suggested that Mr. Odom withdraw the current application so he can revise the plans and resubmit.

Louis Clayton informed the applicant that a new application would fall under the normal new submittal process.

Mr. Odom asked what happens if he is denied tonight.

Chairman Soule informed Mr. Odom that because he is changing the variance request, he would still simply resubmit a new application; in other words, there would be no issue.

Ken Heinz suggested that the applicant withdraw.

Louis Clayton commented that if the Board denies the new proposal, the same request couldn’t be brought back for a year.

Mr. Odom stated that he would withdraw. He asked that the record reflect that the neighbor is okay with the new proposal.

Chairman Soule stated that is up to them.

Chairman Soule asked for confirmation that Mr. Odom is withdrawing the original application.

Mr. Odom confirmed.

APPEAL FROM KOL RINAH FOR THE PROPERTY AT 7701 MARYLAND AVENUE

Chairman Soule noted that the applicant is requesting a 108 space parking variance.

5

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. Zoning Review Application & Denial Letter 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. Feder replied “no”. He reminded everyone that they were here back in April at which time a 102 space parking variance was granted; they are here tonight for a slightly revised parking variance request due to what transpired at and since the April meeting. He indicated that Kol Rinah is currently operating out of a location in University City and that the game plan is to operate out of the building that was most recently occupied by Journey Church. He stated that the current site has 24 parking spaces and a 20,000+ square foot building, which Kol Rinah plans to expand. He noted that the proposed addition to the building triggered the requirement to provide parking for the entire building. He noted the two variances they are seeking; parking and coverage. He stated that they had a tentative agreement with Pierre Laclede for 130 spaces during the weekend when their primary services are held. He stated that there are no parking issues during the week; their busiest parking times are 5 p.m. Friday through 5 p.m. Sunday. He stated that to reduce the impervious coverage, they had to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces. He noted that the Plan Commission can approve coverage between 55% and 60% during the site plan review process; previously (back in April) their proposed coverage was at 63% and to reduce that percentage, they had to eliminate parking, so they are now requesting a 108 space parking variance (as opposed to the 102 space parking variance they were approved for in April) and will deal with the coverage issue (at below 60%) at the Plan Commission level. He indicated that providing 142 on-site parking spaces is both economically and physically infeasible; it is cost prohibitive. He stated that a variance is still needed because the Pierre Laclede parking can only be provided to them on the weekends. He noted that the only person who came forward and spoke at the April meeting was Mr. Oates who now is satisfied with the new proposal. He stated that they believe the 34 on-site spaces are adequate during the week.

David Cooperstein, Kol Rinah’s VP of Facilities, presented a site plan depicting where the 6 additional spaces were removed and replaced with plantings as well as the location of the dumpster/ enclosure. He noted that two handicapped spaces are included in the 34 on-site spaces.

Chairman Soule asked if there were any questions or comments.

6

Mel Disney referenced the dotted line on the drawing; noting that is the property line. He asked if the sidewalk along Maryland Avenue owned by the church is included in the coverage calculations.

Mr. Cooperstein replied “yes”. He added that by removing these additional spaces, the impervious coverage falls below 60%.

Mel Disney indicated that he realized that. He asked if they have a Friday night service.

Mr. Cooperstein replied “yes”.

Mel Disney asked what time it begins.

Mr. Cooperstein indicated that it begins at sundown.

Mel Disney noted that the parking lease provides weekend parking beginning Fridays at 6 p.m.; creating the potential for a service starting before the parking is permitted.

Mr. Cooperstein stated that services begin at 6 p.m. regardless of when sundown is.

Mel Disney stated that that is cutting it close and asked if the time could be adjusted.

Gary Feder stated that the Saturday morning service is the most attended; there are fewer attendees Friday evening, but if it’s important to the Board, they could revise the agreement with Pierre Laclede to allow church parking beginning at 5:45 p.m.

Mel Disney stated that he hopes they are not forcing their participants to park on the neighborhood streets.

Mr. Cooperstein reminded the Board members that there will be 34 available on-site spaces and that there are no other church functions except services.

Mary DeBenedetti asked if there is a copy of the agreement available.

Ken Heinz informed Mary that the City has it and that he’s been reviewing it. He indicated that it is a 10-year agreement and contains an early termination clause should Pierre Laclede sell the building the agreement is void.

Chairman Soule asked that the church be given time to form a similar agreement (specifically referring to Wash U parking area by US Bank) should the Pierre Laclede one terminate. He added that they fully understand the ongoing obligation to provide parking.

Anne Martin asked how many people usually attend the weekday services.

Mr. Cooperstein replied “10”.

7

Anne Martin asked what the square footage is of the building they are currently occupying.

Dan Rosenthal, Co-chair of the Facilities Committee, stated that the U-City building they are in now is 40,000 square feet; the new building is 32,000 square feet and the proposed addition is 7,200 square feet.

Mary DeBenedetti asked how many parking spaces they have now.

Mr. Rosenthal replied “less than 100”.

Anne Martin asked what will happen when school is in session.

Mr. Rosenthal stated that there are no set hours; children are brought in between 7:30 and 9:30 a.m. and are generally picked up between 4:30 and 6:30 p.m.

Mitch Shenker, President of the Congregation, noted that this is a day care facility; not a school and that there will be no back up on Linden. He stated that the hours of operation are 7:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m.

Anne Martin asked if they are at half capacity currently.

Mr. Shenker stated that they are at about 75% capacity.

Anne Martin alluded to the fact that if they experience growth there could be a parking issue.

Mr. Shenker stated that not each congregation member has a vehicle; there are families.

Mary DeBenedetti asked how many congregants the Journey Church has.

Mr. Shenker stated that he did not know.

Mary DeBenedetti stated that cars (Journey Church congregation) parked on both sides of Linden Avenue. She asked if “no parking” signs could be installed on Linden.

Louis Clayton informed Mary that there is a process for that; that is handled by a different department.

Mr. Rosenthal stated that the Code lists uses and the number of spaces required for each use; 142 total spaces are needed based on those calculations (educational use and office use). He announced that the Journey Church had no parking arrangement, so they will actually improve the parking situation on Linden Avenue.

Mel Disney suggested valet parking; noting that it is not uncommon in an urban environment.

Mr. Rosenthal stated that although people rarely show up on time, they are willing to consider offering valet parking.

8

Mr. Shenker informed the members that Friday evenings are not a big night for them; they average 40 attendees on Friday nights.

Mel Disney stated that all scenarios need to be considered.

Rick Bliss asked staff why the applicant chose to not ask this Board for a variance for impervious coverage.

Louis Clayton informed Rick that the Code allows the Plan Commission to approve up to an additional 5% coverage.

Rick Bliss commented that coverage is not this Board’s concern, then.

Louis Clayton concurred; noting that the applicant was given the choice to ask this Board for a variance for the additional coverage or ask the Plan Commission; the applicant chose to ask the Plan Commission.

Mel Disney asked why they are not asking for 40 on-site spaces; if they get the additional coverage they are asking for.

Gary Feder stated that 34 is appropriate and will serve his client’s needs. He added that it is unusual for sidewalks to be included in coverage calculations and they looked into conveying the sidewalk to the City but found out it (Hanley Road) is a County Road and it would take upwards of 6 months to go through the process through St. Louis County and not be guaranteed it would be approved by them; so with that they decided to proceed here (before this Board). He stated that if they get denied this evening, they cannot move forward with the project; he asked for support of this proposal.

Chairman Soule asked the percentage of coverage the sidewalk adds to the coverage.

Mr. Rosenthal replied “1.6%”.

Chairman Soule asked if there were any further questions or comments.

Mr. Feder again asked for support of this Board; he noted that they previously granted a 102 space variance and now are only asking for a 108 space variance; a minor increase.

Chairman Soule asked Mr. Feder if the alternative of a smaller addition would not meet his client’s needs.

Mr. Feder concurred.

Chairman Soule asked about shuttle service.

Mr. Feder indicated that a shuttle is unnecessary because of the parking at Pierre Laclede.

9

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

Rick Bliss made a motion to grant a 108 space variance from the required 142 parking spaces to allow 34 parking spaces on-site, with the condition that the property owners maintain 130 off- site parking spaces in the form of a lease agreement for their exclusive use from Friday evenings through Sunday evenings. The motion was seconded by Mel Disney and unanimously approved by the Board.

(A suggestion to require the applicant to record the parking agreement with St. Louis County was made; however, Counsel informed the members that it would have no legal validity and may have a negative impact).

Anne Martin asked if the variance runs with the property.

Mr. Heinz replied “yes”. He offered the parking license agreement dated June 23, 2016 (with Pierre Laclede) as Exhibit “F”.

There were no objections to this exhibit being entered into the record.

Being no further business for this Board of Adjustment this evening, the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.

Staff informed the members that there will be no meeting in August.

_________________________ Recording Secretary