MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING ST. CHARLES COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT DATE: February 4, 2016 TIME: PLACE: 7:00 P.M. COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING 201 NORTH SECOND ST. FIRST FLOOR MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM 116 ST. CHARLES, MO 63301 MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: SPEAKERS: Catherine Dreher; Gerry Prinster; Fred Henke; David Bauer; and Robert Sundermeyer, alternate Board member Kevin DeSain; and Robert Boschert, alternate Board member Darren May, County Planner, Robert Myers, Director of Planning & Zoning; and Sheila Weiss, Recording Secretary Application VARI5-000010: Robert Matulewic, Owner Application VARI6-000001: Alan and Diane Handler, Owners Application VARI6-000002: Richard Sheehy, Owner; Beth Banze-Versheldan, Applicant 1. CALL TO ORDER Board of Zoning Adjustment Chairman, Fred Henke called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Following the Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Henke welcomed the audience; explained the functions of the Board of Zoning Adjustment and the format of the meeting; and explained the procedures for speakers. Chairman Henke also introduced The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and Zoning Maps of St. Charles County into the record. 2. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA None Page 1 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3640 NORTH HIGHWAY 94- VARIANCE REQUEST Application: Applicant/Owners: Variance Requested the Zoning: Area: Location: Council District: Account No.: VAR1 5-000010 Robert and Glenda Matulewic Section 405.435.G - To vary the requirement that front yard be landscaped. 12/DF/FF, Heavy Industrial District with Density Floodway and Floodway Fringe Overlay Districts 30.80 acres On the east side of Highway 94 North at Highway B 6 885090A000 Secretary Dave Bauer read the variance request aloud. Chairman Fred Henke opened the public hearing and asked the owner or owner's representative to approach the podium to explain the request. The Applicant, Robert Matulewic, was sworn in. Mr. Matulewic stated that the property located at 3640 North Highway 94 is filled with broken pieces of concrete. He stated that according to the letter from Baxter Farms and Nurseries, the concrete and gravel contained in the soil along the front of the property is not able sustain trees and shrubs, and there is also no access to water service on the property to water new plantings. Mr. Matulewic added that none of the other commercial or industrial properties along North Highway 94 have any front yard landscaping. Chairman Henke asked the staff if they would like to like to provide any additional information regarding this variance request. Robert Myers, Director of the Planning & Zoning Department, stated that this particular property appears to exhibit an exceptional situation or condition that may prevent the applicant from meeting the ordinance, due to the fact that some areas of the soil along the front of the property appear to contain concrete pieces. He also stated that although the total area of this property is 30.8-acres, the only usable portion of the property is a section of approximately 2-acres in size along the front due to the majority of the property being composed of wetlands. Mr. Myers asked the applicant to clarify whether the concrete fill exists along the entire 750 feet of frontage on the property, or if there are areas where landscaping could possibly be planted. Robert Matulewic responded that there may possibly be some areas that could sustain landscaping, but there is no access to water service on the property so there would be no way to water any new plantings in case of a drought. Page 2 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016
David Bauer asked the applicant what purpose he is currently using the property for. Mr. Matulewic responded that he currently has some old vehicles parked on the property. He added that he has significantly cleaned up this property since he purchased it, and he presented some before and after photos of the property to the Board for their consideration. Darien May stated that upon visiting the site, he noted that there is an approximately 20 foot long strip at the front of the property that does not appear to contain any concrete pieces. Mr. May noted that grass, bushes, and weeds have been growing along that strip of the property for many years, so that area should also be able to sustain shrubs and trees. However, staff is recommending approval of this variance request, and finds that granting this variance would keep the property consistent with the lack of landscaping on all other commercial and industrial properties in the area. For the record, staff did not receive any written communications regarding this variance request. Chairman Henke asked the Board if they had any questions for the staff regarding this application. Dave Bauer asked the staff if any of the other commercial and industrial properties along Highway 94 North have been granted variances for not having front yard landscaping. Darren May responded that since many of those properties were developed prior to the requirement for front yard landscaping, those properties are not required to have front yard landscaping. Chairman Fred Henke asked the Board if they had any questions for the applicant regarding this application. There were no further questions. Chairman Henke asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this application. There were no speakers. Chairman Henke closed the public hearing and called for discussion from the Board. Gerry Prinster stated that he has resided in the area of this property for many years, and he feels that the applicant has substantially cleaned up this property since he purchased it. Mr. Prinster stated that the request to waive the front yard landscaping requirement for this particular property seems very reasonable in his opinion. There being no further discussion from the Board, Gerry Prinster made a motion to approve Application VAR I 5-000010. Catherine Dreher seconded the motion, and Chairman Henke called for a vote The vote on the application was as follows: Page 3 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016
Catherine Dreher - Yes Gerry Prinster - Yes Dave Bauer - Yes Robert Sundermeyer - Yes Fred Henke - Yes Application VAR1 5-000010 was APPROVED by a vote of 5 yes and 0 no. II. 1003 HIGHWAY DD - VARIANCE REQUEST Application: Applicants/Owners: Variance Requested: Zoning: Area: Location: Council District: 2 Account No.: VARI6-000001 Diane L. Handler Revocable Trust, c/o Diane and Alan Handler 1. Section 405.080E. 1.b - To vary the maximum size of an accessory structure from 1,500 square feet to 2,275 square feet; and 2. Section 405.420A.1 - To vary the maximum length of a recreational vehicle from 24 feet to 45 feet. A, Agricultural District 1.08 acres On the west side of Highway DD, approximately 350 feet south of Garrett Lane 619470A000 Secretary Dave Bauer read the two variance requests aloud. Chairman Fred Henke asked the owner or owner's representative to approach the podium to explain the request. The property owners, Diane and Alan Handler, 260 Northlind Drive, were sworn in. Mrs. Handler stated that they are requesting to build a pole barn (2,275 square feet) on the property. They wanted to attach a garage to the home, but the lot is too narrow given the setbacks, and there's a septic field in the front yard so they can't build there. The only place they can build is in the back. The basement of the home is sometimes wet so they would like additional storage space. The reason they would like a storage building larger than 1,500 square feet is so they can park a motor home. That's the second part of their request. They don't yet own the motor home but plan to purchase it soon. They were shocked to learn that County ordinance prohibits parking a recreational vehicle longer than 24 feet on the property, even inside a barn. Mrs. Handler spoke with her Council member, Joe Brazil, and he was likewise surprised to hear this. He suggested she speak with all the neighbors. Letters were submitted to the Board from all the neighbors except one that do not object to either variance and with a verbal agreement from the one who did not sign. The County told Ms. Handler that she could store the recreational vehicle at an approved storage facility, but there's not even one in St. Charles County that can Page 4 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016
provide covered storage with electricity. She knows of people who live nearby who store recreational vehicles indoors which are longer than 24 feet. Gerry Prinster asked the applicants if they currently live at this home. Diane Handler responded that they do not. Their son and his family live there, she lives three miles away. There is a possibility that they could live there in the future. If they were to build an accessory structure for their recreational vehicle at their home on Northlind Drive, the subdivision covenants would require the structure to be all brick and that would be a lot more expensive, plus they would have to deal with the homeowners association and approval by the trustees. In closing, Mrs. Handler stated that they disagree with the County staff report concerning such large recreational vehicles blocking the highway when entering and existing the property. They have had long vehicles pulling large boats entering and exiting this property in the past and have never had any traffic issues. They only approach from the north and not the south. Fred Henke commented that it's his personal opinion that traffic safety concerns are outside the scope of the Board's interest in deciding on the variances. Diane Handler gave one additional letter from a neighbor to County staff to enter into the record. Mr. Bauer asked if they would provide information on the appearance of the pole barn. The Board only has a prospective site plan showing the location. Diane Handler responded that the will hug the back corner of the property. She has spoken with the neighbors, and no one has a problem with it. Chairman Henke asked if it would be metal or wood. Diane Handler responded that it would be a traditional pole barn with metal siding. Mr. Prinster asked if County staff could advise the Board as to the County standards concerning the materials of construction. The Board has previously encountered guidelines on this issue. Chairman Henke stated that he would now turn to County staff for any comments they might have. Robert Myers stated that while staff is reviewing the architectural standards, he would like to comment that a variance is to be based on a factor that constrains the property such that the property owner really can't use it. It must be something that's intrinsic to the property, such that following the regulations would constrain use of the land. Usually regulations causing a hardship are minimum standards, such as meeting a minimum setback requirement. He can't imagine what would be a hardship that would cause the need to exceed a maximum standard. What conceivably would be a hardship requiring that the maximum size of an accessory building be exceeded? Second, even if a 45-foot Page 5 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016
recreational vehicle were stored in an accessory building, the applicants could still meet the maximum size limit of 1,500 square feet for lots of this size in this zoning district. It's a matter of convenience that the applicants wish to add additional storage beyond the recreational vehicle. Mr. Bauer asked if recreational vehicles are allowed over 24 feet in length, and Mr. May responded not on any residential lot in unincorporated St. Charles County. Ms. Handler stated that nobody follows or even knows about that rule. Mr. Prinster stated that the rule seems very arbitrary to him. Mr. May responded that it was adopted by the County Council on November 23, 2004 and not by County staff. Robert Myers stated that as a point of information, he understands that at the next County Council meeting, the Council would be considering an amendment that would impose the 24-foot length requirement to only RVs stored outdoors. Chairman Henke stated that Councilman Brazil had mentioned to him at a meeting the previous week that he would be introducing such a bill. Mr. Henke discussed the Board's options, including taking action or tabling the request until after the County Council's decision. Mr. Myers recommended that the Board proceed with voting on both applications independent of any potential ordinance amendment. Chairman Henke asked the applicants if it would be acceptable to table the applications until the next month's meeting. Ms. Handler responded that they would prefer the Board move forward because the recreational vehicle is under construction. Mr. Handler stated that they purchased the home with the idea that someday they would downsize and live on it, and that they would have someplace to store their RV. They didn't know about the regulations. Dave Bauer asked the applicants if they could live with just a 1,500 square foot accessory building as allowed by the ordinance. Diane Handler stated that the RV would fit in that, but the property does have a hardship. With the narrow lot and the slope, the only flat area to build a garage is in the back and separate from the house. They would love to store lawn mowers and tractors inside the structure too, so 1,500 square feet would not be large enough. The neighbors don't object to it at all, and it would be a lovely structure. Asked by Board member Gerry Prinster, Mr. May reconfirmed that the 24-foot maximum length for RVs applies to both indoor and outdoor storage. Mr. Prinster commented that there are many RVs in the County which exceed that length. Page 6 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016
Chairman Henke commented that just because someone is breaking the law, that doesn't give permission for others to do it too. The Board discussed the options of approving, denying, or tabling the applications until next month. The bill's specific wording is unknown, and the bill could change during the process. Diane Handler commented that they could make 1,500 square feet work in their situation but they asked for a larger area for additional storage. She stated they do have a hardship because of drainage, and the only place the building will work is on the back of the property rather than attached to the house. She further noted that if they could have attached the garage to the house, there's no size limit on the garage. They can't build to the side of the house because the house itself is already at the 40-foot side yard setback. Chairman Henke asked for a motion. David Bauer made, and Gerry Prinster seconded, a motion to approve Variance Request No. 1 (Section 405.080E.1.b - To vary the maximum size of an accessory structure from 1,500 square feet to 2,275 square feet). The vote on Variance Request No. 1 was as follows: Catherine Dreher - Yes Gerry Prinster - Yes Dave Bauer - Yes Robert Sundermeyer - Yes Fred Henke - Yes Variance Request No. 1 for Application VAR16-000001 was APPROVED by a vote of 5 yes and 0 no. Chairman Henke then asked for a motion on the second variance. Catherine Dreher made, and David Bauer seconded, a motion to approve Variance Request No. 2 (Section 405.420A.1 - To vary the maximum length of a recreational vehicle from 24 feet to 45 feet). The board discussed the motion. Mr. Prinster commented that the size limit of 24 feet is very arbitrary. Ten years ago when the law went into effect, a 24-foot motor home was pretty significant. Today you commonly see 30 to 40 feet motor homes. He has a friend who purchased a $2.8 million motor home which is way better than his house. As time goes on, expectations change. And when the County Council convenes he believes the Council will allow that size of an RV (for indoor storage). With no additional discussion, the Board voted on Variance Request No. 2 as follows: Catherine Dreher - Yes Gerry Prinster - Yes Dave Bauer - Yes Robert Sundermeyer - Yes Fred Henke - Yes Page 7 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016
Variance Request No. 2 for Application VAR16-000001 was APPROVED by a vote of 5 yes and 0 no. Chairman Henke said he would inform Mr. Brazil of the outcome of this application as Mr. Brazil did speak with him at length about this at an unrelated meeting. III. 3341 RIDGEWAY DRIVE - VARIANCE REQUEST Application: Applicant: Owners: Variance Requested feet Zoning: Area: Location: approximately Council District Account No.: VAR1 6-000002 Banze Custom Homes Richard and Angela Sheehy Section 405.090E.3. - To vary the minimum front yard setback for an accessory structure from 50 to 26 feet. Ri E, Single Family Residential District 1.49 acres On the north side of Ridgeway Drive, 400 feet east of Quiet Drive 7 i1ii;i.i;i.iieci Secretary Dave Bauer read the variance request aloud. Chairman Fred Henke opened the public hearing and asked the owner or owner's representative to approach the podium to explain the request. The Property Owner, Richard Sheehy, was sworn in. Mr. Sheehy stated that he has lived on this property for over 20 years. He stated that they also own the adjacent property located at 420 Quiet Drive, which they are planning to sell. He stated he would like to build a detached garage on the property that would be located 26 feet from the front property li ne. He stated that it appears that the only way to meet the required setback of 50 feet from the front property line would be to place the building either on the west side of the property or in the rear of the property. He would like to place the structure on the east side of the property, where there is already access to electricity and plumbing. He stated that he feels that the structure would look better cosmetically if it were on the east side of the property because it will back to the woods and creek, instead of backing to the barn located on the adjacent property. He stated that there are sewer lines located on the west side of the property that would cause problems if he were to build there, He also stated that it could cost him thousands of dollars more if he is required to move the property line on the west side of the property by hiring someone to do a boundary adjustment survey. Mr. Sheehy stated that he has spoken with his neighbors, and none of them have any objections to this variance request. He added that he disagrees with the statement in the Staff Recommendation report that locating an accessory structure so close to the street would be incongruous to the development pattern established for the subdivision. He Page 8 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016
stated that there are multiple properties within a two-block radius of his property that have accessory structures located closer than 50 feet to the street. He further added that there are a wide variety of different accessory structures throughout the neighboring vicinity, including structures with roofs that don't match the homes on the properties; structures that are made of metal; and one property which has three accessory structures in the yard that are all different. He believes that all of these different accessory structures at various locations on the properties throughout this area look just fine. The accessory structure he is proposing to build will have a stone and brick facing and will not look out of place at all on the east side of the property, in his opinion. Chairman Henke asked the Board if they had any questions for the owner regarding this application. Dave Bauer asked Mr. Sheehy what he plans to use the accessory structure for. Mr. Sheehy responded that he plans to store some motorcycles, and a 24 foot long boat in the structure. Gerry Prinster asked Mr. Sheehy how close to the street the proposed structure would be. Mr. Sheehy responded that the structure would be 26 feet from the property line and 42 feet from the street. Gerry Prinster asked Mr. Sheehy to clarify if the structure would be 42 feet from the rightof-way, or 42 feet from the edge of the street. Mr. Sheehy responded that the structure would be 42 feet from the edge of the street. As a point of order, Darren May stated that the front building line for detached accessory structures is measured from the property line, not from the edge of the street. Dave Bauer asked Mr. Sheehy what costs he believes would be associated with doing a boundary adjustment plat and placing the structure on the west side of the property. Mr. Sheehy responded that he believes a property boundary survey would cost him approximately $1,500 dollars; plus the cost of running additional plumbing and electrical lines to the west side of the structure; plus the cost of adding an additional concrete driveway to the structure. Darren May stated that there are no charges from St. Charles County when submitting a boundary adjustment plat. He stated he contacted a couple of property surveying companies to get an estimated price on a boundary adjustment survey. He stated that the cost would range between $900 and $1,200 dollars, depending upon how much of the property line the owner decides to move. The Applicant, Beth Banze-Versheldan, approached the podium. Ms. Banze stated that in her opinion, placing a 36 x 34 accessory building on the west side of the property would overwhelm the house and the property would lose its value and curb appeal. She stated that moving the side property line would take property value away from the adjacent Page 9 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016
property that the owner is planning to sell. She also stated that the proposed accessory structure is too large and the structure is about the same height as the house. Placing it any closer to the home would totally overwhelm the home, in her opinion. Dave Bauer asked the applicant why the structure could not be made narrower and wider, in order to be able to place it on the east side of the property and still meet the required setback distance. The applicant, Ms. Banze-Versheldan, responded that making the structure narrower would not be possible because there is an easement on that side of the property that would prohibit that. The owner, Richard Sheehy, added that he cannot reduce the length because the structure needs to be at least 34 feet deep in order to accommodate his 24 foot long boat that's on a 34 foot long trailer. Gerry Prinster asked the owner if he has considered moving the proposed driveway to the opposite side of the accessory structure and making it a corner entry driveway. If he does that, he could still build a 36 x 34 foot building and be able to meet the required front yard setback of 50 feet. Mr. Sheehy responded that if the driveway were moved to the other side of the structure he would have to have the building plans re-engineered, because it would change the position of the roof trusses, and that would be pretty expensive. Ms. Banze-Versheldan added that moving the driveway would also require quite a bit more concrete, which would also increase the cost of the building project. Chairman Henke asked the Board if they had any questions for the applicant or the owner. There were no further questions. For the record, staff did not receive any written communications regarding this variance request. Chairman Henke asked if there was in the audience that would like to speak on this application. There were no speakers. Chairman Henke closed the public hearing and called for discussion from the Board. Chairman Fred Henke asked the Planning & Zoning staff if the proposed structure meets the maximum allowed size limit for accessory structures in the Residential Zoning District. Darien May responded that the proposed accessory structure is 1,236 square feet. Therefore, it does meet the maximum size limit allowed on the property, which is 1,500 square feet. There being no further discussion from the Board, Chairman Henke asked for a motion to approve Application VAR16-000002. The motion for approval was made by David Bauer and seconded by Robert Sundermeyer. Page 10 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016
The vote on the application was as follows: Catherine Dreher - Yes Gerry Prinster - Yes Dave Bauer - No Robert Sundermeyer - Yes Fred Henke - Yes Application VAR16-000002 was APPROVED by a vote of 4 yes and 1 no. 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 6. 2015 REGULAR MEETING Chairman Henke asked the Board members for a motion to approve the minutes from the August 6, 2015 regular meeting. David Bauer made the motion to approve, and the motion was seconded by Gerry Prinster. The minutes were approved by unanimous voice acclamation. 5. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Henke asked the Board and Staff if there was any other business to discuss. There was none. 6. ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING Chairman Henke called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was made by David Bauer and was seconded by Catherine Dreher. The motion to adjourn was approved by unanimous voice acclamation, and the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Fred Henke, Chairman 7 ~~916 Date Page 11 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting, February 4, 2016