November 14, 2019
Board of Adjustment · All meetings
Full minutes
1
MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 14, 2019
ROLL CALL: RICK BLISS
LIZA STREETT
SUSAN ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MARY DEBENEDETTI SCOTT DEDERT, PLANNER ANNE BISHOP
KEN HEINZ, CITY ATTORNEY CHAIRMAN GARY SOULE
CHAIRMAN SOULE called the meeting to order at approximately 17:00.
Minutes from the August 1, 2019, meeting are postponed until the December meeting.
The first item, an appeal from Ken and Lori Aston, has been removed from the agenda for this meeting, is that correct Mrs. Istenes?
SUSAN ISTENES – Yes, that is correct.
APPEAL FROM BLAIR AND SASHA KWESKIN, APPLICANT/OWNER, FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES FROM THE CITY OF CLAYTON’S ZONING REGULATIONS: A 5.00-FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET (SECTION 405.1900.A.2).
BLAIR KWESKIN (BK) – HOMEOWNER 8145 PERSHING AVENUE SASHA KWESKIN (SK) – HOMEOWNER 8145 PERSHING AVENUE
ALL THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK WERE SWORN IN BY SUSAN ISTENES. ______________________________________________________________________________
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 – 8145 Pershing Avenue, homeowner. Here to request a variance to build on top of the already non-conforming garage that sits 5 feet into the required rear yard setback. We spoke to our neighbors including those who were opposed to our project the first time around. We submitted 19 letters of support. The proposed use would not hinder the spirit of the neighborhood. The need for the variance is the result of the unique circumstances of our property being that the existing home is sitting within the rear yard setback. The property already has an existing set exterior which makes it capable of carrying the load.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – I mark this packet of letters as Applicant’s Group Exhibit Number 1, Mr. Heinz do you have copies of these letters? Do you have any objections to this exhibit being made a part of this record?
KEN HEINZ – Yes, I have copies. No, I do not have objections.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Ok, Applicant’s Group Exhibit Number 1 will be added to the record. Members of the Board, any questions for the applicants?
RICK BLISS – Welcome back, what you are proposing tonight is what we were trying to encourage at the last meeting. My question is really for Susan though, I noticed on this particular photo, your HVAC units are on the north side of the garage, do these get counted as part of the encroachment towards the property line?
SUSAN ISTENES – No.
RICK BLISS – So we do not need to worry about including these in the request?
SUSAN ISTENES – Great question, but you are correct, we do not have to worry about them.
BK – Those are existing. We do anticipate moving those to the east which is consistent with most of the neighbors on the street.
SUSAN ISTENES – There is a requirement to remain 5 feet from the property line.
LIZA STREETT – You’ve been very careful to describe what you want to do, did you mention anything about the roofing material matching?
BK – The roofing material would be matching.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Mr. Dedert, it is my understanding that the proposed project is on the same footprint of the existing garage in this case, is that correct?
SCOTT DEDERT – That is correct.
3
CHAIRMAN SOULE – So the existing garage already encroaches approximately five feet into the rear yard setback.
SCOTT DEDERT – That is also correct.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – The proposed location of the new garage and the bedroom addition would not increase the existing footprint they just change the height of the existing non-conforming.
SCOTT DEDERT – That’s correct.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – It is the stance… observation that granting this 5-foot variance would not likely impair an adequate supply of light and air on the north side of the property.
SCOTT DEDERT – That is correct.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – The surrounding property owners have lived with the existing 5-foot single story encroachment for some time now.
SCOTT DEDERT – Correct
CHAIRMAN SOULE - Are there any known negative impacts associated with the property with regard to the requested variance?
SCOTT DEDERT – Not that I know of, no.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Now for the Kweskins, did you all consider any alternatives?
BK – Yes.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – One was a new detached garage with a second story addition, what was the, why was that alternative rejected in place of the project you’re presenting tonight?
BK – It is an attached garage with a second story addition, sorry that is mistyped. If we did a detached garage, we would need another variance. So, we did consider building to the west but based on the evaluations with Tom and our contractor and others, we found that it wasn’t an advantage for us because we wouldn’t be able to fit two cars based on the existing footprint of the home.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Any other questions for the Kweskins? Mr. Heinz, does the City have anything else to offer or ask?
KEN HEINZ – No.
RICK BLISS – I WILL PROPOSE APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE LOCATION OF A NEW SECOND STORY ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING FIRST FLOOR EXISTING GARAGE THAT WILL
4
ENCROACH 5 FEET INTO THE NORTH REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 30 FEET PER SECTION 405.1900.A.2 AT 8145 PERSHING AVENUE. MARY DEBENEDETTI AND LIZA STREETT– SECOND
ALL AYE
MOTION PASSES 5-0. APPEAL GRANTED ______________________________________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM RICHARD AND KATHERINE LINTZ, APPLICANTS/OWNERS, FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES FROM THE CITY OF CLAYTON’S ZONING REGULATIONS: A 13-FOOT 4-INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 60 FEET ALONG FAUQUIER DRIVE (SECTION 405.1900.A.1) AND A 5-FOOT 9-INCH VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED PRIMARY STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 10 FEET (SECTION 405.1900.A.3.C).
RICHARD LINTZ (RL) – HOMEOWNER 6375 ALEXANDER RANDALL COMFORT (RC) – ARCHITECT
ALL THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK WERE SWORN IN BY SUSAN ISTENES. ______________________________________________________________________________
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.
RL – Living on a corner lot I have two front yards. The setback for my backyard has to conform to the setback for the front yard. The existing patio back there we would like to make a gazebo. What we are asking is to cover our existing patio in our backyard. The other options we looked at in the past have been an addition off the kitchen but because of the way the house sits, the
5
patio is almost a half story below the kitchen/first floor. So any addition we did would sit fairly high over the driveway. We want to keep this low at the existing patio level.
MARY DEBENEDETTI – Is it just going to be screened or will it be glassed for the winter?
RL – Just screens. There will be some portion of solid wall on the driveway side, our driveway side, but the rest will be screened. There is a possibility that we would potentially put in a fire pit but decided no.
MARY DEBENEDETTI – And it will not go beyond the brick patio you have?
RL – We may extend an old stone wall to give us a couple feet outside, but we have a huge Pin Oak.
RICK BLISS - I’m having trouble with the math in that on the appeal to the Board of Adjustment cover sheet it says that, we’re being asked for 13 feet and whether it’s 13-feet 2-inches or 46-feet 6-inches which the difference there between 46 and 60, I’m not sure wh…I guess I’m not sure why we are not talking about 13-feet 6-inches and then over on page 3 it talks about a 13-foot 2- inch and then in Scott’s email in paragraph 2 it talks about 13.4 inches. I’m confused on what is necessary. I want to make sure you leave here with the proper variance. If we approve 13.2 and you need 13.6 it doesn’t do you any good. So what do you need?
SCOTT DEDERT – Required is 60 feet and on the plans it says 46.8 it said 46.6 in the narrative. I see 46.8 on the plans here so…
RICK BLISS – You would need 13.4 inches?
SCOTT DEDERT – I got 13.2 60 feet minus 46.8 is 13.2. On the plans it says 13.4 so that is where I got 13.4. When you do the math it is 13.2.
RICK BLISS – I am afraid I am not following the math still.
ANNE BISHOP – 60 minus 46.8
CHAIRMAN SOULE – That is 13.2
RICK BLISS – It is 46.8 right but it says 46.6 inches in the description on page two.
LIZA STREETT – That would be 13.4
RICK BLISS – 46-feet 6-inches would be 46.5-feet, correct? so
MARY DEBENEDETTI – Correct.
RICK BLISS – We don’t want to use decimals when we can use inches.
6
SCOTT DEDERT – True, help me here.
LIZA STREETT – It is either decimals or inches, it makes a difference.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – The drawings…
RICK BLISS – I’m not as adept at reading the plans as I am reading the narrative.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Yep.
LIZA STREETT – Would it make sense to ask them to propose the largest amount they might need and if they don’t need it, they are ok.
RC – 13-feet 6-inches, it would cover 13.2 and 13.4 – so 13-feet 6-inches would be fine.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Does the site plan say anything different? Do you have any suggestions…
SUSAN ISTENES – I want to make sure Rich’s architect confirms what they need. And if we think there is an issue with advertising then…
CHAIRMAN SOULE – While we are waiting for this question to be answered, is there anything else for Mr. Lintz?
MARY DEBENEDETTI – Susan I have a question for you, if they decided to do anything, as he mentioned, with extending the brick around the gazebo, that wouldn’t be an issue for this…
SUSAN ISTENES – Correct, this Board is concerned with the variance and the building. Thirteen four?
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Thirteen four is the answer. Mr. Heinz, if there was any question as to what was advertised, is that problematic from a legal stand point?
KEN HEINZ – I would consider it problematic from a legal stand point, but you could consider it de minimis, the lawyer in me says it’s not exactly right but the human in me says it’s close enough for our purposes. There is no one here objecting to this.
SUSAN ISTENES – The advertisement that gets posted on the property is the official advertisement so if that was posted at thirteen four, then do you still have a concern?
KEN HEINZ – If it read thirteen four then that would resolve the concern.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Do you agree that the fact that their property is a corner lot that has two front yards creates a different standard that which they have to conform to?
SCOTT DEDERT – Correct.
7
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Am I correct that the proposed accessory structure here should not be any danger to safety or public welfare?
SCOTT DEDERT – That is correct.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Would granting the variances likely impair an adequate amount of light and air on the property or to neighboring properties?
SCOTT DEDERT – That is correct.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Mr. Lintz can you tell us why, if any, other alternatives were rejected in place of this request?
RL – The alternative we considered was putting an addition on the house but we felt it would be massive compared to any neighboring additions.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – Does anyone have any further questions for the applicant? Mr. Heinz, do you have anything further?
KEN HEINZ – No, nothing further.
CHAIRMAN SOULE – I would entertain a motion then.
RICK BLISS – I PROPOSE APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE EXISTING PATIO TO ENCROACH 13-FEET 4-INCHES INTO THE REQUIRED 60-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK PURSUANT TO SECTION 405.1900.A.1.H AT 6375 ALEXANDER DRIVE.
MARY DEBENEDETTI – SECOND
ALL AYE
MOTION PASSES 5-0. APPEAL GRANTED
RICK BLISS – I PROPOSE APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE 5-FEET 9-INCHES FROM THE REQUIRED 10-FEET FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT 6375 ALEXANDER DRIVE PURSUANT TO SECTION 405.1900.A.3.C.
LIZA STREETT – SECOND
ALL AYE
MOTION PASSES 5-0. APPEAL GRANTED
Being no further business for this Board of Adjustment this evening, the meeting adjourned at 18:00.