10-16-17BOA minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

foot rear yard setback, if in compliance with the Zoning Code, would extend to the interior of the property owner’s existing kitchen. Since the proposed addition would maintain a similar, although slightly larger, footprint than the existing porch, there would be no detrimental impact on adjacent property owners. Due to the unique shape of the lot caused by an irregular rear property line in comparison to other neighborhood lots, there was not enough room to construct a laundry room addition in compliance with the required setbacks. Public Comments  Amy Norris, property owner of 8742 Teasdale Avenue, was sworn in by Mr. Marentette. Ms. Norris stated that the proposed addition was intended to allow the other occupant, Mary Jo Towle, and herself to remain residents of the home by alleviating the physical hardship of accessing their basement due to health related concerns. She further stated additional personal and medical reasons for why the proposed addition is necessary in order for them to reside in the home well into the future. Ms. Norris also confirmed the minimal enlargement of the existing space to be enclosed and explained that alternative orientations of the appliance within the existing footprint were not viable. Having no additional requests to speak, the public hearing portion of the case was closed. Mr. Marentette asked Ms. Riganti for the staff opinion. Ms. Riganti stated that staff had no objection to the variance request. Mr. Marentette and Ms. Anderson both visited the site but did not speak with the property owners. Mr. Burkett and Mr. McFarland did not visit the site. Board members discussed the proposal and agreed that the request met the hardship requirements set forth in the Zoning Code. There was discussion of the hardship caused by the irregular pie shape of the lot as similar to others throughout the community. The Board members agreed that the request for a variance was reasonable given the circumstances. Mr. Marentette called for a roll call vote. The variance request was approved by a vote of four (4) to zero (0). 2. Case # BOA 17-04 – 6920 Olive Boulevard Mr. Marentette introduced the variance request of Jackson Gnaedinger with Cellective Solutions, LLC, for a variance on behalf of MCW RD University City Square, LLC c/o Desco Group, property owner of 6920 Olive Boulevard, to construct an 80-foot unipole-style telecommunication facility with associated ground equipment and screening, maintaining 1) a minimum distance of 99 feet in lieu of 200 feet from Vernon Avenue; and 2) a minimum distance of 140 feet in lieu of 200 feet from the closest property in the “PA” – Public Activity District (6860 Vernon Avenue) as required by Section 400.1400.C.3 of the Zoning Code at a location on the subject property in the “GC” – General Commercial District. Mr. Marentette read the standards for granting a variance as per Section 400.2950 of the Zoning Code into the record. He asked if there were exhibits to be entered into the record. Ms. Riganti entered the following exhibits: the zoning code, the variance application and the public hearing notification. Mr. Marentette swore in Eric Martin, Bryan Cave, One Metropolitan Square, 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102, legal representative of the applicant. Mr. Martin presented prepared slides explaining the request in relation to the Zoning Code, Page 2 of 4