November 1, 2018

1

MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 01, 2018

ROLL CALL: RICK BLISS

ANNA KRANE, PLANNER AIDEN MCAULEY

KEN HEINZ, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY LIZA STREETT ROBERT DENLOW CHAIRMAN GARY SOULE

CHAIRMAN SOULE called the meeting to order at approximately 1703. He noted that there is one item for consideration this evening.

The minutes of the September 06, 2018 meeting were presented for approval. Several minor corrections (typographical errors) were needed and the Recording Secretary indicated she would make those corrections. The minutes were approved, as amended.

RICK BLISS – Motion to approve minutes from 09/06/2018 as amended.

LIZA STREETT – Second

ALL - Aye

APPEAL FROM CHARLES BELL ARCHITECTS, INC. ARCHITECT FOR HOME OWNERS J. ALLAN AND LYNNE RONEY, 412 OAKLEY DRIVE

CHARLES BELL – ARCHITECT

J ALLEN AND LYNNE RONEY – HOME OWNERS – 412 OAKLEY DRIVE

MATT FALK – NEIGHBOR – 416 OAKLEY DRIVE

ALL THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK WERE SWORN IN BY KARI CRANFORD, RECORDING SECRETARY ______________________________________________________________________________

CHAIRMAN SOULE asked if the City had any exhibits to present with regards 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. Property Survey Site Plan, and elevation submitted by applicant E. Staff Report

2

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

CHARLES BELL (CB) – No

CHAIRMAN SOULE – The City’s exhibits A – E will be included in this record. Asks for applicant representative to come forward and begin by stating name and business address.

CB – My name is Charles Bell and my address is 8008 Carondelet, Clayton. Thank you for meeting us this afternoon, we wish to make a modest renovation to the home. Explains the kitchen entrance is very difficult to use and the stairs to the basement are tight, dangerous, and noncompliant which will be improved, safer, and code compliant with the approval of this variance. Our addition will be single story and has attributes of light, air passage, and view.

Presents a new survey update that is marked and entered as Applicants Exhibit 1 as requested by Chairman Soule.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – I would like to confirm that the Roneys’ own both lots 13 and 14

ANNA KRANE (AK) – Explains that the survey provided with the original application was not clear on if those lots had been consolidated. Staff does not have anything that says the lots were consolidated at any point in time within our own records. The results of this new survey provided makes it look as though these lots were legally consolidated and that would change the side-yard setback.

KEN HEINZ (KH) – Mr. Bell, has there been an official lot consolidation because Staff has not been made aware of it?

CB – For tax purposes it is considered one single lot but there is nothing else that says they are. I asked my surveyor if these were one single lot or separate lots and his records show that they are legally two separate lots.

AK – That is not how it is drawn by them on this survey, there is a dashed line. They drew it as one lot.

CB – The legal description and the way they’re drawn show two separate adjacent lots.

KH – I don’t think the taxing of it establishes a lot consolidation.

CB – That is also my understanding as well.

RICK BLISS (RB) – Why does it matter if they are consolidated?

AK – It makes an impact because they side yard setback is based on a percentage of the average width of the lot so it would make a difference on the variance you would grant.

3

RB – If the lots were combined, then the side yard setback would be greater than 5 feet.

AK – Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – To clarify that and continue that, if the lots were consolidated would this variance be necessary?

AK – Yes, an even greater variance would be necessary. The reason I am struggling with the way it is drawn here is because typically when you do plats, it’s very common to have lots consolidated and be shown as original lots with a dashed line and the current existing boundaries be shown as solid bold lines. So, you can see on the corner property to the east of you, Lot 15 and Lot 16, that’s another example of a consolidated lot. They have shown that one property owner owning both Lots, 15 and 16, and the dashed line shows how they were originally platted. So that’s the concern here. That the property line splitting Lot 13 and 14 is dashed.

RICK BLISS (RB) – What you’re saying is that it would be a disincentive to have the lots be consolidated.

AK – Yes. These lots were platted prior to our current subdivision regulations. Consolidating them, you would not be able to split them back into two separate lots because it wouldn’t meet our new subdivision codes. Consolidating them officially would make larger side yard setbacks required.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – And would make this variance larger than the current request.

AK – Yes.

AIDEN MCAULEY (AM) – Question: if they are combined they would be requesting a 5-foot variance, 5-foot setback?

AK – No, if they are combined I would have to calculate it again. It would be larger than 5 feet. They would have to be in compliance with our current codes.

AM – reiterates that the house is already noncompliant.

AK – Yes that’s why we’re here. It is illegal, nonconforming.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Ok thank you for that explanation and clarification. I went out and looked at the house this morning and this construction is really going to impact the house that is on the other side of the house that’s on the open lot, is that correct? And the space between the two houses is fairly small. So one of the questions is: are there practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships associated with the strict application of the Zoning Regulations due to the exceptional or unique circumstances or conditions such that strict application would deprive the owner of reasonable use of the property?

4

CB – Yes it is very difficult. Please look at the photograph provided in Applicants Exhibit 1 that shows how irregular and narrow it is. This is the only door on the first level and it is very difficult to access. The existing house is already in violation (1.4 feet) and we were careful to find something that would be less than that preexisting nonconformance. We are trying to make it 1 foot 3 inches. Our application is for 1.5 feet in case something happens but we don’t want to make this condition worse and we want to make this so we don’t have an issue with light, air ventilation, view – we still preserve all those things.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Ms. Krane, what are Staff’s observations?

AK - The subject property narrows from the front to rear. Staff does recognize that the design of the existing house dictates the location of the proposed addition and egress point; however, narrow lots are a common characteristic of the Wydown Forest Neighborhood. Staff does not believe that the characteristics of the subject lot are exceptional or that strict application of the Zoning Regulations would deprive the owner of reasonable use of the property.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Granting the variance requested would observe the spirit of the Zoning Regulations and secure public safety and welfare.

CB – Yes; the application preserves the integrity and conforms to the intention of the pre- existing side yard.

AK – The Zoning Regulations establish setbacks to maintain an appropriate amount of light and air amongst structures and to ensure compatible development of properties within the district in which they are zoned. Staff does not anticipate any significant detrimental effects on public safety and welfare associated with approving the requested variance.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – The deviation from strict application of the Zoning Regulations authorized by the variance would not constitute a change in the district map, impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, increase congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire, materially diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding area and would not in any other respect impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the City of Clayton.

CB – Yes; the modest addition allows sunlight exposure, light and ventilation, full access to the building, garden and utilities, uses and enjoyment of the owners/occupants and those of adjacent neighbors.

AK – It would not be anticipated that the addition would be a detriment to surrounding properties or create a public safety concern.

AM – Asks about neighbor at Lot 12 and if they have talked to him.

Matt Falk (MF) – Stands and begins to speak in approval of the variance for the Roneys’ addition. Is a trustee and states that the trustees approve this as well. The neighbors do not object either (Lot 18).

5

Presents letter in support of the variance signed by himself and Jennifer Falk (wife) marked and entered as Applicants Exhibit 2.

Al Roney (AL) – Lived in the house for 34 years and Lynne has been wanting to improve the rear area of the house for a long time. We want to upgrade the general appearance; the newer homes are much more appealing, and we would like to improve our home to match them.

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

LIZA STREETT (LS) – I move that we approve a 1.5-foot variance from the required west side yard setback of 5 feet to allow the construction of an addition per section 405.1900.a.3

RB – Second

CHAIRMAN SOULE – All in favor of Mrs. Streett’s motion?

ALL – Aye

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Any opposed?

*NO*

Motion passed. Motion Granted.

Being no further business for this Board of Adjustment this evening, the meeting adjourned at 1735.

_________________________ Recording Secretary