May 2, 2019
Board of Adjustment · All meetings
Full minutes
1
MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 2, 2019
ROLL CALL: RICK BLISS
AIDEN MCAULEY
ANNA KRANE, AICP, PLANNER LIZA STREETT ROBERT DENLOW
KEN HEINZ, CITY ATTORNEY CHAIRMAN GARY SOULE
CHAIRMAN SOULE called the meeting to order at approximately 17:04.
The minutes of the April 08, 2019 meeting were presented for approval. The board made minor amendments.
RICK BLISS – Motion to approve minutes from 04/08/2019 with minor amendments.
LIZA STREETT – Second
ALL - Aye
APPEAL FROM NOEL AND BARBARA MARTIN, APPLICANTS/OWNERS OF 7624-7626 WYDOWN BOULEVARD FOR A USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR SECOND RESIDENTIAL SPACE (SECTION 405.2940).
BARBARA MARTIN (BM) – HOMEOWNER NOEL MARTIN (NM) – HOMEOWNER BARRY NELSON (BN) – ARCHITECT
ALL THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK WERE SWORN IN BY KARI CRANFORD ______________________________________________________________________________
CHAIRMAN SOULE asked if the City had any exhibits to present with regards to this appeal.
KEN 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
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Asked if the applicant had any objections to the City’s exhibits
APPLICANTS – No objections
2
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.
NM – Brought with him the architect Barry Nelson who will be explaining the proposal.
BN – In 2017 we came to this board to restore the availability of residential rental space in the building and were granted the variance. We made the case that all the commercial buildings in the area have residential units on the 2nd floor. It is within the character of the neighborhood. There are quite a number that don’t currently conform to the code. I looked at the ordinance and it doesn’t really apply to this neighborhood. This zoning district is used in several areas around the city but there are so many residential units in this area that it doesn’t really apply here. There was not going to be any parking at all. The building occupies the entire lot and the variance was granted despite that. They went back to bankers and were discouraged from doing the two apartments. The result was they now want to refurbish the space and create one large unit for themselves and create parking in a garage space. So we would like to recover the variance that was granted a couple years ago and finish the project we started. The only major change to the building is putting in new insulated windows on the second floor.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Asks Anna Krane to confirm Staff analysis a-e in the staff report:
a) The applicant will be deprived of all beneficial use of the property under any of the permitted uses in the zoning district in which the property is located, all beneficial use being lost only where the property is not suitable for any use permitted in the Zoning Ordinance for that zoning district. b) The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated unnecessary hardship by expert testimony and/or documentation and not mere conclusionary or lay opinion that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose or purposes permitted in the zoning district in which that property is located. c) The plight of the owner is due to exceptional or unique circumstances and not due to general conditions in the neighborhood. d) The use to be authorized by the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. e) The proposed use to be authorized by the use 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.
ANNA KRANE – Confirms analysis from staff report.
a) Due to the age of the structure and current accessibility requirements for commercial uses, the second floor unit is not well suited for permitted uses in the C-1 Zoning District. The second floor unit was previously used as an apartment and could be converted back to one; however, residential uses are prohibited in this district. b) Mixed-use buildings that include residential units are common in the Wydown Business District; however, they are not permitted in the C-1 Zoning District. When the building was constructed, second floor residential units were permitted in commercial districts. The second floor unit was previously used as an apartment and
3
could be converted back to one; however, residential uses are prohibited in this district. Due to the age of the structure and current accessibility requirements for commercial uses, the second floor unit is not well suited for permitted uses in the C-1 Zoning District. c) The second floor unit could have continued being used as a residential apartment had it not been converted to a music studio. The legal non-conforming status expired when the music studio occupied the second floor units. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the space must comply with the current provisions of the C-1 Zoning District. d) Other legal non-conforming residential units are located in the Wydown Business District. The subject building previously contained residential units and granting the variance to allow the conversion of the second floor back into residential would not alter the character of the neighborhood. e) Granting the use variance will permit a residential use in a building that previously contained a residential apartment. No changes to the building are proposed other than interior renovations to restore the residential use. The proposed use will not constitute a change in the district map, impair the supply of light and air to adjacent properties, increase congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire, negatively affect property values or impair public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the City.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Soule called for a motion.
LIZA STREETT – I move that we approve a use variance to allow for second residential space (Section 405.2940). to grant a variance from Section 405.2940 Permitted Uses for the C-1 Zoning District for the City of Clayton Zoning Regulations to allow a residential use on the subject property.
ROBERT DENLOW – Second
CHAIRMAN SOULE – All in favor of Mrs. Streett’s motion?
ALL – Aye
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Any opposed?
*NO*
Motion passed. Appeal Granted. ______________________________________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM JOHN FALK, APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF CONCORDIA SEMINARY, OWNER OF 6701 SAN BONITA AVENUE FOR A VARIANCE OF TWO PARKING SPACES FROM THE REQUIRED TWELVE (12) ON-SITE PARKING SPACES (SECTION 405.3620.A.1).
SCOTT FEHL(SF) – ARCHITECT REPRESENTING CONCORDIA SEMINARY JOHN FAULK – CIVIL ENGINEER – CIVIL DESIGN INC MARTIN HAGUE – DIRECTOR OF CAMPUS FACILITIES – 801 SEMINARY PLACE
4
ALL THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK WERE SWORN IN BY KARI CRANFORD ______________________________________________________________________________
CHAIRMAN SOULE asked if the City had any exhibits to present with regards to this appeal.
KEN 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
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Asked if the applicant had any objections to the City’s exhibits
APPLICANTS – No objections
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.
MH – We would prefer to provide 12 spaces, however if we cannot we would like 10. This is our second time here so we can provide 10 and stay within the setback. Anna mentioned tandem parking spots but no one likes to be blocked in so we could do that but most would be 10 and the two tandem would be vacant and park on the street.
Rick Bliss – Can they park on the side of the fire lane right in front of the building and still have a drive wide enough to allow for fire trucks?
Anna Krane – I spoke with the fire marshal and he said it is hard to determine right away because the plans didn’t have enough information. The road is approved for 2 way traffic but he would prefer if the sidewalk along the west side were moved to allow for the spaces so the drive could remain 24 feet to allow for two way traffic.
The Board proposes multiple alternatives to the applicant and Scott, Martin, and John, explain why these alternatives would not work based on design, desirability for tenants and the school, and math calculations. Anna also explains why certain Board proposed ideas would not work for the area.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Asks Anna Krane to confirm Staff analysis a-c in the staff report:
a) There are 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. b) Granting the variance requested would observe the spirit of the Zoning Regulations and secure public safety and welfare.
5
c) 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.
ANNA KRANE – Confirms analysis from staff report.
a) Many of the adjacent multi-family buildings do not conform to the Zoning Regulation that requires two parking spaces per unit. The subject property has a larger lot area and 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. As discussed at the previous variance request hearing, staff would support a tandem parking space design for the remaining two parking spaces required on the subject property. b) The Zoning Regulations establish off-street parking requirements to ensure there is sufficient supply of parking spaces to handle demand without negatively impacting public infrastructure and to ensure compatible development of properties within the district in which they are zoned. The requirement for off-street parking in multi-family residential neighborhoods is to provide a supplement of parking to support residents and visitors. The subject property is located in a neighborhood that currently relies mostly on public street parking and therefore, it is an area that would benefit from the strict enforcement of the Zoning Regulations.. c) Granting the variances would not likely impair an adequate supply of light and air, however, it would result in another property not providing the required off-street parking spaces in the neighborhood.
Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Soule called for a motion.
LIZA STREETT – I move that we approve a variance of two off street parking spaces from the required twelve off street parking spaces to allow for a total of ten off street parking spaces (Section 405.3620.A.1).
ROBERT DENLOW – Second
Motion approved. Appeal granted
Being no further business for this Board of Adjustment this evening, the meeting adjourned at 18:21.
Recording Secretary