August 1, 2019

1

MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 1, 2019

ROLL CALL: RICK BLISS

AIDEN MCAULEY

SUSAN ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MARY DEBENEDETTI ANNE BISHOP

KEN HEINZ, CITY ATTORNEY CHAIRMAN GARY SOULE

CHAIRMAN SOULE called the meeting to order at approximately 17:05.

RICK BLISS – Motion to approve the minutes from 05/02/19 with minor amendments.

ANNE BISHOP – Second

ANNE BISHOP – Motion to approve the minutes from 07/11/19 with minor amendments.

RICK BLISS – Second

The minutes of the May 2, 2019 and July 11, 2019, minutes were approved as amended.

APPEAL FROM BLAIR AND SASHA KWESKIN, APPLICANT/OWNER, FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES FROM THE CITY OF CLAYTON’S ZONING REGULATIONS: 3 INCHES FROM THE REQUIRED EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5 FEET AND 7.5 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET.

BLAIR KWESKIN (BK) – HOMEOWNER SASHA KWESKIN (SK) – HOMEOWNER

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.

BK – Talks about home and the reason for requesting the variance. The garage is not a 2 car garage and they have bought smaller cars from when they lived in UCity and had a small garage there and now this is an even smaller garage. We currently sit 5’ into the 30’ rear yard setback so we are requesting to extend that ~2’ in order to have a functioning garage space and open our doors. We also need a 3” variance for the existing garage because it and the home do not quite line up and so it’s 3” over the side yard setback. I have included in your packet where our property sits on the map and our plans that we are hoping we can do. In the connection between the garage and the main house, the siding was poorly put up and so when we do this we would replace it with brick so that the architectural design and materials match. I understand there is some concern with natural light being blocked so we would like to address that.

SK – I would like to address any questions you have about the sunlight and there are two issues that are important to me to keep in mind. There is a 200 foot Pin Oak that our neighbors requested we remove. The other issue is the sunlight. I went to this website suncalc.org and it shows that the shadow doesn’t go over our fence and reach the neighbors yard. You can see specifically that there is never a shadow that goes into the neighbor’s yard. The shadow would be the worst in January and even then, it’s not impacting their area.

RICK BLISS – What is the full scope of the project?

BK – The basement is questionable. The ideal plan would be to have a basement under there but it’s dependent on a lot of factors. The basement would be under the kitchen though not the garage. The load it would have to bear if it was under the garage would be extremely costly.

RICK BLISS – If the foot print were to remain the same and they wanted to put an addition on top of it would that need a variance to be approved?

SUSAN ISTENES – Yes if they were to build on top of the current foot print, they would need a variance, yes. For the 3 inches on the side and the 5 feet in the rear.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Is your lot irregular?

BK – We have an attached garage that is a hinderance.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – That has nothing to do with your lot. Do what you can to explain your request, I’ll give you all the time you want, is there something unique and different from your neighbor’s lot? That’s my question.

BK – No, I don’t think so.

SK – The attached garage is pretty far from the fence, most other homes have a detached garage right on the fence.

3

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Anything different about the topography of your lot from those of your neighbors or any other natural situations that have to do with your lot that makes it different from your neighbors?

BK – No.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – No, ok. Thank you I appreciate that. You all said on your application that the addition of a master bedroom would allow full functionality of the single-family home. Would you explain what that means?

BK – I work from home, full time and run a business out of a corner of my basement and so a 4th bedroom would make it a functioning home for us. That was always our intention because we are a family of 4, having four rooms would allow for an office space.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Did you ever think to ask the City when you bought the home if you would be able to do this or any kind of permits you would need or any kind of issues that would prevent you from doing this?

BK – No, I wasn’t aware of a variance issue. As a design professional I am aware of the permitting process, however I didn’t realize there would be a required variance.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – So no, you didn’t.

MARY DEBENEDETTI - Have you thought of renovating your basement?

BK – Yes, we actually have already done that because there was mold actively growing when we moved in.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – On your appeal you say that the house would be comparable to the homes on the block that also have 3-4 bedrooms. Isn’t the size of your lot the same as the other homes on your street with exception of the corner lot?

BK – Yes.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – That’s also true in respect to Kingsbury with the exception of the corner lots, all those lots are essentially the same?

BK – Correct, but the challenge we face is the garage sitting in the 30’ setback and that makes it difficult to make our home larger whereas the neighbors are able to build into that area and we are not. I think what makes it look like the garage would be so close to the fence is the tree back there.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – What conversations did you have with your neighbors about this project?

BK – Our direct neighbors were aware, and I talked to Karen Gulick about two months ago at the beginning of the summer since they had applied for a variance recently and then over time I have

4

talked to them since we purchased this home. None seemed to have an issue until this variance letter came out.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – So did you apply for this before or after you talked to your neighbors the Gulicks?

BK – The conversation was before that because we had a playdate at Meramec.

RICK BLISS – I’m looking at a photo labeled as “West elevation 6-1-2019” and I’m wondering why you cannot expand your garage to the south swallowing that man door there. It appears from a different exhibit of your plans, that while you’re adding that eat in kitchen there is a space here for a man door into the garage and this breezeway. If you were to leave your north wall where it is, could you not have a large enough garage if you were to sacrifice that man door? We always look at alternatives.

BK – There are two issues with that. We have existing footing already there so we would have to break the footing and have to redo all the footing. It already is a small space so the ability to have a “mud room” is something we would like to keep.

SK – We weren’t aware anyone would have such an issue with 2.9 feet until today.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – That’s not the only issue that we are required to consider. Even if none of your neighbors had objections to your project, if the request doesn’t meet the requirements, we would still have to meet those. That’s a great segue into some questions I have for Mrs. Istenes.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Asks Susan Istenes 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. 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.

SUSAN ISTENES – Confirms analysis from staff report.

a) The shape of the lot is a typical rectangular shape (50 feet wide by 120 feet deep). Lots in this neighborhood have a similar configuration and size. The applicant claims the existing garage already sits 5 feet into the rear setback, therefore, if the variance was granted, the new structure would encroach an additional 2 feet 6 inches into the rear yard. Strict application of the regulations would not deprive the owner of reasonable use of the existing garage and residence.

5

b) The Zoning Regulations establish setbacks to maintain an appropriate amount of light and air between structures and to ensure compatible development of properties within the district in which they are zoned. The proposed location of the new garage and bedroom addition increase the degree of non-conformity in the rear yard from 5 feet to 7 feet 6 inches (an additional 2 feet 6 inches) closer to the neighboring property to the north. The east wall of the addition will be located 3 inches closer to the neighboring property to the east. c) Granting the 3 inch variance would not likely impair an adequate supply of light and air on the east side given its insignificant size. Given the smaller size of these lots in this neighborhood, a 7-foot 6-inch encroachment into the rear yard with a two-story structure could be viewed as significant, however, the surrounding property owners have lived with the existing 5-foot, single story encroachment for some time, without known negative impacts. _____________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC COMMENT:

DAVID GULICK (DG) – 8144 Kingsbury – Neighbor to the north – my wife is a registered architect so it’s something we understand well. I want to make a very pointed remark that we sympathize with the Kweskins because we’ve been here before and we were denied that. We don’t chase variances because the character of the neighborhood is important to us. We looked to the design to solve our problem and not a variance. I know you got a letter from me so I’m not going to be too duplicative…

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Marking the letter from Mr. Gulick as Neighbors Exhibit 1. Do you, Ken, or you the applicant, have any objections to this being added to the record.

BOTH KEN AND THE APPLICANTS – No.

DG – We told them to not attempt a variance, so we viewed their plans this week when Karen went to look at them. This came out of left field to us, we knew there was a project but no we didn’t know what the plans were or anything until Karen went to look. It’s not the existing structure that is an issue, it’s that it’s getting even closer to us and the fence. If you stand at the fence line from Forsyth and look down, you’ll see the principal building is sitting closer to 35’ from the setback. This would be visible from Pershing. It gets over looked because everyone built to the max lines but we really can’t due to the detached garage. If we changed the shape we could have gone 5’ more. If you look at 8132 Kingsbury, they had to kill the house and build a new one because it wouldn’t pass the impervious coverage regulation. So while I’m sympathetic to wanting a bigger garage, I too want a bigger garage but if we start granting variances because of whims and wants, the integrity of the neighborhood will decline.

RICK BLISS – If I understood what you just said, if Sasha and Blair were to propose a second story addition without moving further north from where they currently are you would be supportive?

DG – Correct.

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Would you consider withdrawing your requests before we vote?

BK – No, why would we do that?

6

CHAIRMAN SOULE – Based on the discussion we’ve had today and that 4 votes in favor are required to approve any variance. You’ve requested two separate variances and that’s how it will be voted on. Would you like to take a few minutes to consider this, would you like to withdraw your appeal? You can do this before we take a vote.

BK – No, we wouldn’t.

AIDEN MCAULEY – Would you like to take a few minutes outside to make sure you’re in agreement with each other and want to continue with the requested variances?

*BK and SK leave to go talk about this and come back*

SK – We would like to proceed with this vote.

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

RICK BLISS – I move that we approve an area variance to allow for a 3.00-inch variance from the required east side yard setback of 5.00 feet, Section 405.1900.A.3

MARY DEBENEDETTI AND ANNE BISHOP - SECOND

RICK BLISS – Aye AIDEN MCAULEY – Aye MARY DEBENEDETTI – Aye ANNE BISHOP – Aye CHAIRMAN SOULE – Aye

MOTION PASSES 5-0. APPEAL GRANTED

CHAIRMAN SOULE – I move that we approve an area variance to allow for a 7.6-foot variance from the required rear yard setback of 30.00 feet, Section 405.1900.A.2

MARY DEBENEDETTI – Second

RICK BLISS – Nay AIDEN MCAULEY – Nay MARY DEBENEDETTI – Nay ANNE BISHOP – Nay CHAIRMAN SOULE – Nay

MOTION FAILS 0-5. APPEAL DENIED ______________________________________________________________________________

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

7

19:00.

Recording Secretary