Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Good time.

Good evening everyone. This evening is our monthly meeting of the board of adjustment. We are committed to a transparent process and encouragement of public comment during our meetings. We will be accepting testimony from all parties. If you wish to testify on any particular petition before us this evening using the Zoom platform, please use the raise hand feature. You can raise your hand at any time and we'll recognize you at the appropriate time for the presentation of evidence for each case. If in person this evening, please hand staff your speaker's card. Planner Robin Keefe will be moderating the hybrid meeting and will be asked to provide names of those individuals that wish to speak. I would like to call the meeting of the city of Wildwoods Board of Adjustment to order. The board members present today are Bob Morris, board member. Kevin Lux, board member. Mike Lee, board member. Arie Sprunger, board member, and myself, Jared Frank, chair. The Department of Planning staff present is Joe Vunich, director of planning, and Robin Keefe, planner. City attorney Sarah Rutherford and Court reporter Courtney Tolman are also present on Zoom. First, I offer into the record the affidavit of publication pertaining to today's meeting, February 9th, 19th, 2026, and take official notice of the zoning ordinance of the city of Wildwood, including chapter 400, article 2, authorizing establishing the board of adjustments powers and duties. Now, let me explain the hearing procedure. Please be aware the information I'm about to describe is also provided on the board of adjustments public hearing procedure handout, which was available online and prior up to tonight's meeting. The hear this hearing is informal in nature. However, the meetings proceedings will be recorded by reporter for future transcription if needed. The petitions are called in the order listed on the agenda. As the petition is called, I will ask a Department of Planning staff member to read each request into the record. Thereafter, the Department of Planning will have opening remarks and a brief slide presentation. Then the petitioner or his or her representative will be asked to state their name and address, be sworn in by the court reporter and make a brief presentation to the board explaining the nature of the requested variance and present such evidence and witness

testimony that may evidence the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship that warrant the variance. The board will only consider the unique character of the property determine whether they warrant the granting of a variance. The petitioner's presentation shall be limited to 15 minutes total inclusive of any questions posed by the board unless such time is extended by the chair. Board members may ask questions to clarify the facts of the petitioner's presentation. When the board is satisfied with the material presented by the petitioner, the chair will then ask if there is anyone present or online who would like to speak in favor or opposition to the requested variance. Each speaker will be asked to provide their name, address, be sworn in, and then provide their evidence and oral testimony. Witness testimony shall be limited to 5 minutes inclusive of any questions posed by the board unless such time is extended by the chair. Procedurally, the petitioner may request a continuence at any time during the hearing prior to a call for vote in order to bring in additional evidence or testimony. The board may also continue the proceedings. After the submission of testimony and evidence from all interested parties, the board will ask a staff member to provide the Department of Planning's report on this matter if requested by any member of the board, the petitioner, or any individual that is participating in person or online. Once all the witnesses have been heard, the chair will call for a motion to grant or deny with or without conditions. Then the board will vote. At that time, the presentation of evidence relating to the petition is concluded and no further evidence will be permitted. The board may make a decision today. Four members of the board must vote in favor of the variance for it to be approved. If a variance is approved, the petitioner has 6 months to obtain the necessary permits or establish the use or it will expire. If the board's decision is unfavorable, the petitioner has the right to appeal to the St. Louis County Circuit Court. This appeal must be done within 30 days of the decision. Miss Keefe, are there any questions at this time? At this time, uh, individuals online, if you wish to ask a question, please use

the raised hand feature. Is there anyone in the audience? Mr. Chair, I see no raised hands. The meeting will proceed. Please read the first request into the record, which will be followed by a brief brief slide presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the first item on tonight's agenda is BA31-25, Jared Ecman 1128, Highway Route 109 Street, Wildwood, Missouri 6338, Care of Dakota Longnecker, Blumier Builder 205 East Gate Drive, Washington, Illinois 61571. Request exceptions to the min yard requirements general and the accessory buildings and structure standards for the purpose of constructing a detached postframe garage with covered porch upon the property being located at 1128 Highway Route 109 Street. Locator number 21W340080, which would thereby authorize a sideyard setback distance of 7 ft in L of 30 ft. an accessory structure with a square footage greater than 1 and 12% of the overall lot size 3,100 square f feet in le of 1,189.19 square ft. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.090 NU non- urban resident district regulations of the city of Wildwood zoning ordinance. The single family dwelling on the property was built circa 1918 and has been served a and is included in the city of Wildwood historic building inventory. This age threshold does require the Historic Preservation Commission to consider this request as it is processed given the structure is in excess of 75 years of age and the proposed garage has the potential to impact its historic character. This particular property is located in Ward 3. And before Miss Keefe starts the slide presentation, the department would like to enter into the record the following items. Chapter 400, Article 2 of the City of Wildwood

Municipal Code, the board of adjustment. Chapter 415 of the same city of Wildwood Municipal Code, the zoning ordinance, the file that has been developed and maintained regarding this particular request and all contents contained therein, including the department's report with recommendation, and then finally, any testimony or evidence provided in support of tonight's hearing. Thank you, Miss Keef. Are the speakers on? Uh, they should be. Can you hear everything? Okay.

Everybody out there hear everything okay? There's the buzz. Is that better? I think we're good. Yeah.

All right, Mr. Chair, members of the board, uh I'll go ahead and get started with this first request this evening. Uh the subject site of this first request is located in northeastern Wildwood along Highway 109, uh just north of Garden Valley Drive. Uh the subject's lot has 155 ft of frontage along State Route 109. Uh but it does have a significant depth to it as well at 506 ft. It is a legal non-conforming lot in the non- urban residence uh zoning district at 1.82 acres. This is an aerial of the lot. Uh as you can see uh this is the single family dwelling upon it and this is an existing garage and this is the neighboring residence. Uh the single family dwelling uh was built circa 1918 according to the Wildwood Historic Building Survey. Um, and then there is an existing uh twocar garage as I just pointed out uh that the petitioners are planning to demolish uh so that they can build a newer uh garage. Uh the existing garage is currently 8.9 ft from the sideyard or from the side property line. Uh the applicant is requesting this evening to build a new detached garage which would be substantially larger than the existing uh but 15 ft back from where the existing garage is currently located. Uh it will be 44tx 60 ft in area with an overall height of 22 feet.

Um the the non- urban residents uh zoning district does require a 30foot sideyard setback distance. Um and in this uh in this case the petitioner is requesting 7 ft. Um the non- urban residence uh district also um dictates how large accessory structures uh can be. Um accessory structures on lots five or less in acres um in size may be no more than 1.5% the overall lot size. And the intent of this zoning regulation is to uh maintain a certain scale and character of buildings. Uh because the dwelling on the property is in excess of 75 years of age. The Historic Preservation Commission is also required to consider the potential impact of this request um given that it may potentially impact the historic character of the property, particularly given uh the size of the proposed building and its proximity to the historic dwelling on the site. This dwelling, it should be noted, is not listed on the Wildwood Historic Register. So, it is not protected by city ordinance. Um the only reason the Historic Preservation Commission is involved is because it is in excess of 75 years of age. So it's an age threshold um that triggers that review. Uh the property does have a limited slope to it with the highest elevation at the front of the property and then descending um towards the rear. Um it is mostly lawn uh with dispersed trees. Uh this site map shows um where all of the uh we've already touched on this,

but uh this is the site plan that shows the planned building in relation to the home and the property lines. So as you can see, they're requesting to be 7 ft from the sideyard property line. They're showing that it's set back 15 feet from the existing garage and it's going to be uh 241 ft from the front yard property line and 265 ft from the rear yard property line. Uh this is the front elevation um and a 3D rendering of the proposed building. Uh this is what would face 109 um as you're looking at the front of the residence. Uh these are the elevations um of the building. Again, this is the front elevation here. Uh this is the rear elevation showing uh this covered porch area which is calculated as part of the overall size of the building. Um, and then this is the south side elevation and this is the north side elevation. This is the floor plan. Um, so here you can see the the main building and then this is the covered porch area. Uh this is looking uh east from Highway 109 towards the front of the residence and the existing garage. Um so the new garage would be placed in this approximate location but 15 ft back and just a little um closer to that sideyard property line. Uh this is facing west towards 109.

This is looking southwest towards 109. And this is looking northwest towards 109. This is looking north at the southern elevation of the existing dwelling. Uh this is looking northwest. where it's rear. Uh this is looking south at the northern side elevation or facade and this is south looking towards the neighboring residence. Um this is the petitioner's dwelling. This is the neighboring residence. Uh this is looking southeast at the existing garage. This is looking southeast at the rear yard. Uh these are a few structures that are still um on the site. And this is looking southeast um behind the existing garage. So this is the existing garage structure. Um, and this is looking towards the neighboring dwelling. So, this is the neighbor's dwelling and this is the existing garage to give you a sense of that placement. Uh, the historic preservation commission while considering this request did visit the site on November 21st of 2025. Um, at that site visit they made a few comments regarding the architectural aspects of the proposed building. They suggested it should be white with a black roof to match with the house. They suggested the window on the front

elevation should be increased in height to match the windows of the dwelling. And they suggested that adding trim around the windows and doors would be a cost-effective method of improving the building's appearance. However, they delayed any uh further action upon it until after the uh historic preservation commission regular meeting which took place December 4th. of that same year. Um at that at that meeting uh members offered comments uh which were pretty wide ranging. Um some of them included that the siding should match the existing dwelling particularly in its orientation. Um it was noted the garage was too close to the house. Uh it was suggested that the structure should be smaller perhaps eliminate uh the covered porch and uh one member city council liaison mentioned that a light colored roof would be better for energy efficiency. Um it was noted by a couple that the building was too big for the site and detrimental to the historic residents. Uh it was suggested by our advisor architect adviser the building should be more barn-like in color versus white and black. Um it was suggested by a city council liaison that the building could be flipped and have the covered porch in front along with some landscaping. Um and again it was noted that the building at present was out of scale and non-residentidential in appearance. Um however um there were a few members that noted that the building is set far back from Highway 109. Um there are there a key consideration is neighbor support for it which has been given. Um there was an understanding for the need for storage giving the lack given the lack of it in the historic home and um it was noted that there have been many modifications

um in addition to the existing dwelling on the site. So, some felt that it wasn't under the HPC's purview to comment. Uh, the applicant and their representative also offered comments at that same meeting. It was noted that adjustments could be made to have the window match with the residence. There are a few options out options for trimming it out the window to match with the windows on the house. The structure could be moved back further on the lot at least by another 5 ft. um the siding would match with the home and it was noted that the storage is available in the dwelling is very limited and this garage is a needed amenity for the petitioner. So again, uh we summarized all of those comments in a report or a memorandum that was provided to you this evening. Uh so you're welcome to read that in depth. Um but it wasn't intended to represent a consensus. It was rep it was intended to summarize all the individual comments. Uh the variance history having to do with the site. No previous variances have been granted to the subject property. Several setback reduction variances have been granted to properties along State Route 109. However, no size related variances have been granted to properties along State Route 109. Uh there is uh both support and opposition to the request. Um notably uh all of the uh abuing properties um to the petitioner's property are in support of the variance request. Um there is a few um individuals in support that are along Highway 109 and then there are a few individuals um opposed uh within some of the nearby neighborhoods.

And that concludes uh the department's um introduction at this time. If you have any questions of Director Bunich or myself, uh we are happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Keefe. Any initial questions for the department? Okay. At this time, will the petitioner please come forward and state their name, address, relationship to this property, and we'll get you sworn in by the court reporter. Hi all, my name is Dakota Longnecker. On behalf of Leakman, family and blue builders, I'm the project manager for this project. Uh my address is 14 Sunonnet Wake Court, Wville, Missouri 633585.

Please raise your right hand. We'll get you. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you.

Please go ahead, Mr. Ler. We all good. So, two previously constructed uh accessory structures on the property were destroyed in a tornado. So, the size of the building is somewhat for, you know, a a dilapidated garage that's already on uh the property and two missing structures that were there. Um the family has a large camper that they would like to store. As we all know, neighboring units don't like to see the appeal of a camper sitting out front their driveways. So having the proper storage for that and being able to use this building as a garage and have additional storage for for what's lacking of a antiquated house um is also necessary. The reason for the setback um 30 feet from the property line would move that building over that would make it very difficult for a driveway to be placed to access that structure and park vehicles or such camper inside of it. Um sliding it over to keep it uh in where that existing detached garage is um is pretty crucial to the property. Um and the safety of younger children. This is a growing family. So, their view from uh the back side of their house looking out their windows to the back, there's a significant slope that heads out to the east side that runs to uh Mr. Brian Johnson's property to the east. So, keeping, you know, good line of sight in the backyard is pretty uh imperative for this project. So, scooting that building over allows that that view, keep an eye on things, and being able to see as much as they possibly can. um our site map had shown Robin uh brought up a good point with uh the elevations uh and the contour lines that showed but what that didn't show and it shows more in our site map is where that building is located.

There's a significant space that goes back farther east. That's all dropping at a significant rate. You cannot see it's pretty steep back there. Um the parcel is uniquely narrow. So sliding the building around in reference to where that house is, there's not a lot of great options for the size. Um you know, the proposed placement includes the site functionality while maintaining site uh safe access, adequate separation from the neighboring properties and appropriate yard space. Um in keeping with uh the historic um the historic uh means of of the city of Wildwood, you know, it's not out of the nature um for these buildings um the historic buildings that I have submitted but didn't see on the slides um to be in this area. There's a lot of old older homes um that do have post frame structures right next to the house and the reason for that in past years was primarily used for you know livestock a storage and anything else you could probably think of they use those buildings for in close proximity to their homes. So, a building being close to the house that is well within the keeping of of the nature and historic um nature of this community. Um again, like Robin said, you know, we have neighboring property owners that are in direct support of this project. Uh Mr. Brian Johnson and his wife Susan, they own the property to the east and directly to the south. And then, you know, we have direct support of the neighbor to the north um and the west. So, we would appreciate your guys'

consideration for this project and the need to this family. And I'll have anything else at this time would like to speak. Yep. Coming up, we'll get you sworn in. I guess before we start, yeah, these are the buildings uh postframe buildings that we found that are in close proximity um that are as close to the house is within 15 ft. These are historically um protected homes. Um one here's another one. It's close to the property and again it's close to the house almost in a similar uh setup.

Good. Just state your name, relationship to the property, and then we'll get you sworn in as well. My name is Jared Ecman. I'm the owner of the property at 1128 Highway 109. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Rekman.

Uh, yeah, my name is Jared Ecman. Um, I've been a 25-y year resident. Actually purchased the property. Uh, I was a kid July of 2001. Um, got married a few years later. We now have two kids on the property. Wife and I have done a very good job keeping up the property, making it look better. The house looks great. The property looks great. We've lost all of our mature trees over time, replanted them all. Uh, which takes us up till June of this year. a tornado comes through, takes out, you know, multiple big trees, completely takes out a a 20 by4 building as well as significant damage to the current to current garage. Really, we just want to rebuild the garage. Yes, it's going to be a little bit bigger. Um, get rid of instead of having three structures on the property, there was one that was still shown, one's completely gone. Um, but demolish the current building, put it back in the exact same spot, but 15 feet back so it looks better from the road and build it a little bit bigger. The square footage, I know it says 3100, and I understand you've got to include the porch. It's a little deceiving because part of that's the porch. I think the porch cosmetically adds a lot to the building. Makes it look a whole lot better, softens it up. It's great for outdoor living as well. We spend a lot of time outdoors on the property. As has been said, you know, by Robin and Dakota, the house, it's an older home. You know, there's no basement for storage. There's no closet space is minimal.

Yep. So, that's why we're asking just really space for the camper. Space for vehicles is what we're looking for. Thank you, Mr. Actman. Any questions for Mr. Draman or Mr. Long Necker. Yeah. You had mentioned that uh two of the buildings have been destroyed and then the third one is the current garage, right? Yes.

Okay. Um do you know by chance if you were to look at the square footage of those three buildings? How does that compare to the new structure that you're considering? And if you want to, you can leave the porch. I know the city can't leave it out, but in terms of the actual size of the building, the new building, how do they compare? Probably 2,800. We're at 2,800. The total of the other buildings are passing. I'm sorry, I cannot hear. Hello.

Sorry, I apologize. Um, the current building is around 2,800 square ft and then the uh um other buildings are approximately 2,000 square feet. Uh I think the current build is that accurate or the current garage is actually not within specs of what that build of one and a half% it's already over that. Um the current garage is to be demolished. The um the building that's gone it was a 20 x 14 and the other one that's going to go is a 12 x 12. It's still standing but there's sign significant damage. But I believe I believe the current one current garage I think it's 1,800 foot. Yes.

Okay. So the the new proposed garage is about 2,800 square ft. The current garage and the other two buildings is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 or 1,800 or 2100. Oh 2100. Okay. So the difference you you're adding 7 to 800 square ft in the actual building itself I believe so. Yes. Does that sound right? Yes. And then however the porch is calculated. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Uh quick question and it might be for the city. I'm not sure but uh there's been some discussion of the existing garage but there was a comment that no previous variance had been granted and the garage is currently in the setback. So, how did that come to be? What year was it built? Any details you can provide on how we got there? Or maybe the city can answer. I purchased the property in July of 2001. It was there. My understanding it was 1976. I believe it was built before the setbacks. Yeah.

And Mr. Lux, just remember prior to Wildwood's Incorporation, the sideyard setback was 20 ft. And the construction and the type of structure, I believe that particular outbuilding's been there for a pretty long time. Any other questions for the petitioner, his representative? Thank you, gentlemen. Thank this time, we'll open the floor to speakers in the audience who may want to speak in favor or opposition to the request. As a reminder, each speaker has five minutes to present inclusive of the board's questions unless the chair allows additional time. Hi, I'm Brian Johnson. I live at 17820 Blum Park Road which is directly behind Jared's house.

Sorry, it's Yeah. Yeah. He's he's given his address in relationship to the property and then we'll get him sworn in. Sorry, Mr. Johnson. Go ahead. Yeah. Um and I also own the property that is directly to the south that's on the affected uh property line. We'll get you right out here, Mr. Johnson. Okay. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please force.

So the only thing I want to say is uh basically reinforce what Jared's already stated and that there is an existing garage on there that's already over the required new Wildwood I guess regulations for that. And he is essentially building one and he's building one essentially in the exact same spot just moved back slightly. So the current one is in really in needs to be repaired and replaced. And you know, I guess from my point of view, it, you know, it's already, you know, 8 feet off the property line now. It doesn't bother me if it stays that way. So, it is a very narrow um piece of property. So, uh, as they said, it it really needs to be pushed to the side as much as possible. But you know in my other opinion is is that I don't think it has much impact on the historical viewpoint of this thing especially in lie of the fact that it's almost 250 ft from Highway 109. So most people won't even notice it while they go by. But the house itself um you know I've been in it numerous times. It doesn't represent anything from 1918. So, uh, you know, I don't want people to get that opinion that this is some great historical fine, but it's not. Sorry. That's all. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Johnson? Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Any other speakers uh in the audience or online that would like to speak in favor or opposition to this request? Dakota again. We have a video um of passing from 109. Um this was taken at about 30 to 35 miles an hour under the speed limit. Um, and just to give a a feel for for what the current property looks like as you're driving by in consideration for uh pass by, you know, pass through traffic uh going down the road. As you'll notice, it's about 3 seconds that maybe you see it. it's the project is kind of protected um with that pine tree that's sitting there. Um you really don't don't see that impact and the building is going farther back. You know, our sidewalls are so tall to the peak. It is about 22 feet. Um so I just wanted to say that you know this uh this video here just kind of gives you a feel for what it what it may look like.

Sure. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for you. Um, in your discussion with your client about building the structure, did you consider something that's maybe a little bit smaller, something closer to the combined square footage of what you had before? Uh, yes. So, after the historic uh committee, this was originally planned to be a 44 by 44x 68 building with the same height. Um, and we ended up reducing the size to a 44x 60 to reduce that and try to meet some common ground and kind of come into compliance that aspect.

Okay. Thank you. We have another speaker, Miss Q. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I was I thought you wanted to speak as well. Any other uh speakers that want to speak? Go ahead, Miss Mr. Aman.

I guess I was going to add in as far as landscaping, we do intend to uh once the building's completed to put in more trees, shrubs. We'd be open to discussion on that as well. Uh particularly on the south side of the building. So, that's going to happen regardless. How tall did you say your new structure is going to be? It be 22 feet? 22. 22 feet. Yes. And the current garage is how tall of the be?

Yeah, I'm not 100% on that. Okay. So this the new structure is going to be a bit taller. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Eman. Is that for the camper? I assume the height was needed. Yes. Correct. Okay. To accommodate it 12 door. Yes. Uh for the sake of the court reporter, we were hearing numbers like what 13 through 13 to 16 ft from the audience members. Any other questions or any other speakers? Miss Keefe in the audience or in the online.

Uh at this time if there are any attendees online who would like to speak, please use the raise hand feature. Mr. Chair, I see no more speakers. Thank you. Thank you. Um any um additional questions? for anybody who's spoken. Seeing none, uh would anyone like to hear the um oral presentation of the department's report? Seeing none, any other final comments from the department?

Yes, Mr. chair, members of the board. Um, while the department would like to acknowledge uh that the petitioners uh have taken some of the feedback from the historic preservation commission and reduce the size of their uh proposed building, uh it is still twice the size even without the porch calculated into it um of what is permitted on any lot under 5 acres. uh with the lot already being substandard in the non- urban residence district. Uh no other lots along Highway 109 have been approved for such a size variance. And this is typically because these size variances when they have been approved have been for lots that where they were pretty uh shielded from from impacting a larger um area or community. They're usually pretty far back in the lot and and somewhat hidden from view. Um, we'd like to note that the petitioner can still build a garage um up to 1,189 uh square ft. Um, so uh by uh by not granting this variance, we aren't preventing the petitioner from building such a structure that would help them with some of their storage concerns. Uh we are concerned uh that the placement of such a large and um large structure with this height of 22 feet close to neighboring uh close to the neighboring dwelling and also close to uh the petitioner swelling that were creating a massing of structures in that area. Um whereas Highway 109 is is fairly well known for its rural character as you drive down the route. Um, finally, we would like to just mention uh that typically when we do grant variances to structures of this

kind, uh we do so under the requirement that they match uh with the existing dwelling um in material and design. And um and in this case, we'd be especially concerned about that given the high impact from Highway 109, let alone whether or not you want to argue that the house is historic in nature. Um the applicants and their representative did uh make several assertions at the historic preservation commission meeting that there are ways to uh modify their existing design to match more in character uh with the existing dwelling. However, those modifications are not in place as it's presented today. Um so with that said again uh the department is not supporting the variance um as as uh it is currently with the current information that's provided. Thank you.

Thank you Miss Keith. Comments, questions, any final thoughts?

Uh a couple questions. So um if we could pull up the site map. Um curious as to how far off the setback the it looks like the front entry of the house is cuz it looks like it's close to 30 ft itself. And I guess where I'm going with that is if the garage was even of the size that you would say is permissible, if they were to move it off the setback, my thinking is that it would be almost directly behind the house. Is that correct? So that really they have no choice but to be in the side setback in order to even have a driveway approach it. I guess I'm just trying to understand what their option would be to comply with the setback requirement regardless of the size of the structure. Mr. Max, I believe they would have to shift the out building to the east or the rear of the lot a distance then shift to the north to adhere to either the 30ft setback or some reduction in that 30ft setback. So, it's going to move further away from the house. So the um if they said, you know, we want to just rebuild the existing garage because it's kind of worn out, fallen down, so forth. They couldn't, if I understand this right, they couldn't even rebuild their current garage in the very same location as it is right now because it would be in the 30oot setback. Is that right,

Mr. Speaker? The way we treat non-conforming structures that are placed in the setback, as long as they're not expanding it or for a simpler way, increasing the footprint, we do allow it. You do allow the very same size. Correct. We do this often with decks. Um the county's requirements for rear yard decks were was our rear yard areas for decks was 15 feet. Ours is 30. So we come across this quite a bit. But if you're just replacing, we accommodate it.

And so in this case, the additional encroachment's a foot and a half over what the existing structure was except for whatever additional volume in the bag. Again, from the department's perspective, I think Miss Keef and I looked at the fact that it is a substandard lot in terms of size, but it is still almost 2 acres. And we're looking at a a structure that's about 3,100 square ft in size. So, the thought was obviously convenience is key. Having it near the home so you can park your car and not walk a mile in the pouring rain would be an advantage to the property owners. Certainly. So from the department's perspective, the 7 foot distance is really a difficult one to to support. And is there is there a distance that's less than 30 ft? Probably, but we weren't offered anything to look at.

Okay. And then my final question was going to be um we heard about the commentary from the historical panel. Um seemed to me that there were some very contradictory statements within that. So, if your commentary is that you would want them to do something more in line with the existing dwelling and that sort of thing, do you guys have an opinion on what standard that would be versus the differing commentary or is that something that needs to be flushed out or how would they even know where to go from here with what's already transpired?

Well, Miss Keefe is our expert on historic preservation, so I won't delve into that. of the two components of the variance from the the director's perspective, not necessarily the cities, but the director's perspective, the size component is the least ownorous of the two. I understand we get complaints from neighbors all the time that people don't have their toers in the garage and they're visible from the street. And so we go visit the property, talk to the owners, and when they open up their garage, there's all kinds of stuff in there besides cars. And so they don't have room. So storage is key, and we understand that. It's just again, it falls back to the second component of the variance, and that's the setback. 7 feet is minimal. In some instances, you can get a fairly large mower through there, but it's pretty tight. Um, if you put up a ladder and you try to get to the top of the roof, the ladder has to be pushed out some, it's like I say, it's just a very, very limited distance for a structure of this size. And depending on the sun's travel from east to west, it could shade that area as well, which is part of the reason there is setbacks. It all started in New York City because of ten tenementss and the lack of light and air. So I think we're on Miss Keef and I are trying to recognize that Mr. Johnson owns the property but he may not own it forever and it's part of our responsibility both the board and the department to ensure we do the right thing the first time. Thank you. Is there um is this is the setback the primary issue or the size of the building the primary issue or they both the primary

two components and again from the department's perspective the building size it's a almost 2acre lot it's 3100 square ft I think it could work but again in conjunction with the setback variance It's just too it's it's it steps over what the department felt was reasonable.

Little too much to take, huh? So, what I find interesting, too, is if it if they're able to rebuild and stay in compliance with the city, they actually decrease the amount of square footage that they have in their storage facilities, which seems a little tough, you know. Um, so what what I would wonder is, you know, from the department's perspective, if if they could maybe move the building over just even a few more feet, you know, instead of being 7 ft off the line, if they're 10 ft off the line or 12 ft off the line, you know, does that does that influence the department's perspective at all? Um, if if they could make some adjustments like that. Well, at least from the director's position, we've already gone on record saying the size and that isn't necessarily the key component here that led to the recommendation for a denial. So, if there is a distance that the board of adjustment feels is reasonable beyond 7 ft, the department certainly would accept that if it's part of a motion. Um, I don't know if it'll be too late to bring back the uh petitioner, but uh I'd be curious to hear from them as to why 7 feet is the magic number versus 10 11 if there's any flexibility there just so that we can understand because if we're given an ultimatum of seven or nothing, that would be a little tougher than maybe there's some other options in there. So, any thoughts or opinion on that?

Yes, sir. um with maneuvering a uh camper and a truck uh to maneuver through there, it's awfully tight. Um my sidewall distance um going to the end wall to the door opening, you know, it has a significant role. There is a space there that I need from the corner of the building for the start of that overhead door. So 7 ft was nice to kind of keep in line with what they currently have with the driveway to limit um the additional site work, you know, needed to get them to the building. Um, and I wanted to make mention um to Joe's point of of casting shadows, a scary large building being put here. Um, to that notion, you know, this building is of size large. I would argue that it is. I lost them. Yes, I also lost sound. They kicked us out,

I think. So, Oh, no. You have to Oh, there. Oh, there we go. You might have to back out of this. Courtney, where did you uh where did we leave off or when did we lose you? um where he said I would argue that it is I think he was talking about casting shadows in a scary large building.

Okay. So to continue on that point um that building it is of of some size. Um and that's to perspective um it being very large I would argue that that building is not a large structure. Um but to the Mr. Joe's point of casting shadows. Um, you know, as Midwesterners, we all know in the long winter months, the sun is set back into the southern hemisphere going from left to right. Uh, well, east to west that we are not casting shadows into that neighboring uh, property that Mr. Johnson uh, may or may not own in the future. um the shadow would be more casted throughout the year farther to the north um and less of an effect. Uh and also um piggybacking off of Mr. Joe's uh statement of um Robins the historic committee and the barn uh sighting not being the same to match a historic uh home. Um, you know, neighboring properties uh around this area, barns and houses have historically been known to not have the same sighting. They're not ran the same direction. On on the Ecman's home, they have sighting running vertical and horizontal. They have taken aspects of a uh a trimmed header going across the a gable of the truss, the bottom cord gable truss um that is replicated to the house. to bring those aspects into it. Now, because of my sheeting material as barn tin, steel, whatever you want to call it, um you know, the windows that we set, we're not limited to setting a nail flange style window or we typically for uh owners um being mindful of owners, uh an easy v set window uh reduces labor

costs. Um, it improves efficiency with postframe structures and there is a a trim that is that resembles a a residential style trim that you may see on some homes. Um, whether or not you have sighting that might be slightly different with the Jade channel, I just want to bring some of those. I hope I answered your question, Mr. Arie. I Well, actually, no. Um, okay.

I I guess what I'm trying to get get an understanding of is um, you know, could the petitioner live with a building that was shifted somewhat to provide more than a 7 foot setback. Okay. Could they go to 10 or 15?

Right. So, in consideration and placement of the proposed structure, um, as you'll notice on the east end wall, there's another overhead door. And the thought is because of the limited maneuverabilility coming off 109 on the west side that in the future they could add a wraparound drive of the building to exit. And that way that that vehicle, that camper is maintaining forward heading at all times um for better maneuverability. Correct. Yes, we feed and

for a variety of reasons. Um, one thing we had discussed, if you could go to the site map, slide nine, um, originally this building was going to, um, be squared off the end wall of the existing house and in talks with Mr. Ecman, we decided to run parallel with the property line so that that is pulled farther away and he would have even more maneuverability around and and get around there and have a bigger opening um to maneuver that that camper and make make better use of of a narrow lot.

Yeah, I understand that you would love to have a seven foot set back. You might even want a two-ft set back give you more maneuverability. But I think my question, I'm still not sure I got the answer, is you know, if you, you know, could you live with a 10 or a 15t setback, or is it like, no, if I can't have a 7 foot setback, we could

we're not going to build it. We could live with 10. I think with with a 10, you know, that would take our building corner and move it slightly, but I think we gained enough additional room when we decided to ultimately square the building along the property line. So, if if 10 was common ground, I think we would still still be farther away than we originally were squaring it to the house. We had there is if you leave the driveway and you're looking west, there's a similar size building. I don't know, I believe the height of it is taller than what we're asking for, but it's a similar size building directly across from us. Um, so that kind of we took that in consideration as well.

1137 Highway 109 or 1133 is the same owner, the same parts. Maybe it's the same Barcelo. Correct. Two different addresses. The the structure that that you see just below the the the one of the 112 there is that's one of the that's going away. Is that correct? You were going to demolish I think you you said m just under the 112 is gone currently. Um this that is gone. Yeah, that was half of that was leveled uh up to the right of the 112 at the that that's the 12 x 12 that would also be gone sustain some damage as well.

I thought there was if you were to shift it just a few feet, you know, the the porch isn't an issue with that building cuz it's no longer there. So, Right. Right. Right. So, you're getting rid of all the other buildings, the existing garage and the one that's still standing, um, and just replacing it then with this one, right? It's a little bit bigger, but uh, yeah. Okay.

And we, Lunar Builders, um, they build really nice stuff. We took several months to kind of go with them. Uh, we had made that decision by the, you know, late August, early September. Um, so there's, you know, significant, no offense, significant expense with them versus another maybe cheaper builder, but we we want to look to be red. So, it's a white building, black roof, um, compliment the house.

Lunar Builders may be new to Missouri as of the last two years. We're not new to this industry. And we are premier postframe company that general contracts everything from egg shops uh to commercial um to barnaminiums is the new craze. Um we directly employ our employees. They they are balloon employees. So we have direct control over quality standards. We self-perform our own site work, our foundations. We have our own uh peer and bracket system um that we have manufactured. Um, it is not a permacolum and we do not put posts in the ground. So, we're not dealing with the rotting and issues that see standard. Uh, we use composite splash boards. So, anything pretty much anything touching the ground. Um, we're we're we care about customer experience and longevity of our buildings. Um, uplift is a big thing with postframe buildings or smaller structures. So belling, you know, our our sidewalls and where our post columns, you know, anchor into our steel brack stainless steel brackets, those are bell into the ground, meaning that pure drops down and gets a wider footprint at the bottom. Um, in the event of high winds, tornadoes, things of that nature. These buildings do like to pressurize when a failure to a sliding door or any type of door happens. Um, those buildings like to lift. our buildings don't like to

so I don't think there's a question of competency and that sort of thing. Architectural design review will happen and all that separately from our process tonight. So I guess um what I would like to so so what I would like to ask is the challenge we have here is that based on the petition that was presented uh we were given a 7 foot setback and it seems like there's some questions about landscaping and matching materials and that sort of thing and maybe there is some flexibility and seven or 10 feet on the setback. So, the issue we're going to have here tonight is we've got a vote on what was presented as opposed to you guys having the opportunity to maybe clarify some things with the city and then maybe come back in 30 days with a revised proposal that might be a little bit more flexible or work a little and maybe get approval from the city somehow or some further refinement. So, um I mean I think we're in a position now where we can probably make a decision tonight based on what we have in front of us or there's always the opportunity to maybe take a step back on you guys' end if you want to uh to work with the city some more. So, um if we are forced to vote tonight based on what we have in front of us, is there any other information you think you have or that would be relevant so that we could make a decision tonight or is there another way you guys might want to go with that? you'd like to make that seven a 10. Well,

board member Lux. Um, and maybe maybe the department can clarify that, but I think we do have the ability if we so choose we do to say we do, you know, we we would change that. It would be conditioned upon that. I'm just trying to think of all the various contingencies that would also have to be included based on other commentary if we were going to consider something like that. So Oh, you mean like maybe matching material, things of that nature?

Yeah, because we don't have clarity on any of that. So it would be difficult to issue a contingency to address I think everything that we're hearing in front of us. But again, that's my perspective. Not saying it can't be done, but contingent on a 10-foot setback. I think you know, Mr. Eman family would be in agreeance here tonight with that. Um, changing of the materials obviously may provide added costs and that would that would be something that we could definitely look into, although that may take, you know, a week or two or something. But that that does bring um maybe some added cost to to the scopes. Just like to be mindful.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah, we Yeah, either for better or for worse, cost is not really a consideration for the board, but I think you I think what Yeah, Dakota was saying is they couldn't make that decision tonight. That's what right um regardless of I understand that. So, would you prefer having a little bit more time to revisit some of this or do you do you want to try and push forward here and and see if the board can put the continue because we may put a contingency on if we if we did that? You could have a contingency that all of a sudden impacted your cost such that you're not so sure you want to do this anymore. So, how do you want to play that?

Contingent on, you know, a 10-ft setback. And I think that would be and possibly contingent upon landscape design. We would be for that. Um 30 days puts, you know, obviously them out and presents a little bit of the hardship. I I definitely see where you're coming from. I wanted to ask Robin if she could pull up the photos of the house because I there's multiple sightings on this house. I mean, I don't What are you going to pick? one or the other. You got, you know, shiplap, you've got that, and you've got a shingle sighting, I think, on some of it.

Yeah, that would be the challenge is what I'm saying. So, I don't know that that's within our purview anyway, given the historical committee's commentary already. So, I'm just trying to Yeah, I don't I don't see that as an issue myself, what they're proposing, you know, as far as citing the the board and batten on the house. um is very close within an inch or so of the metal being used on the building. Um it it's a really good look. My wife made sure that we had it really close.

There was considerable from Mrs. Eman um that board that is used between those two windows, you know, that is replicated um in our in our building. you know, there's there's a there's a wrapped um it's simply a wrapped board to rec, you know, be very similar um to that aspect. So, consideration of the house was taken into this design, you know, the roofing colors, uh sopet fascia and uh obviously roof steel were to match. down spout uh down spouts are going to be similar. So,

same color. Yeah. South Asia down spouts root I mean everything.

And just a point of clarification, there is no attached garage space at all. Correct. No.

Yeah. Correct. I just I that's worth noting when you consider size and you know there is no you know we've seen four and five car combination of both and you know I just want to point that out there is no attached garage space any other thoughts questions comments Any other final comments from the department based on on the discussion? Okay. At this time, we'll close the proceeding for a vote. Can I have a motion to approve, a motion to deny, or a to approve with conditions? Well, I'll make a motion to approve with the following conditions. that there is a minimum of a 10-ft setback and there's an approved landscape plan. Do we have a second on Mr. Sprunger's motion um to approve with the conditions as he stated?

I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Mr. Mr. Lux, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lee, approve. Mr. Sprunger, approve. And I approve as well with the conditions as stated. Congratulations. Your variance is approved as stated. Thank you. Good luck. We'll move right into the second case. The department will please read that.

Yes, Mr. J. BA4-26 Tom Zeni 10 Foxview Lane while the Missouri 63069 request an exception to the min yard requirements general for the purpose of constructing an attached twocar garage upon the property being located at 10 Fox View Lane located number 28 Y 2200064 Fox View subdivision lot 3 which would thereby authorize a front yard setback distance at 48 ft in lie of 50 ft from the private roadway easement. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.090 NU non- urban resident district regulations of the city of Wildwoods zoning ordinance. An identical request was granted by the board of adjustment on July 17th, 2025, but expired on January 17th, 2026. This particular property is located in Ward 6. And again, before Miss Keith begins her presentation, the department would like to introduce into the record, chapter 400, article two of the city of Wildwood Municipal Code, the board of adjustment, chapter 415 of the same city of Wildwood Municipal Code, the zoning ordinance, the file that has been developed and maintained by the Department of Planning regarding this particular request and all contents contained therein, including the department's report with recommendation. And then finally, any testimony or evidence that are offered as part of tonight's proceedings. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Director Muich. Miss Ke,

Mr. Chair, members of the board, our second case this evening uh has been seen by this board uh just last year. Um however the petitioner is back um uh requesting an extension due to some delays with uh the engaged architect for the project. Uh the subject lot is uh 3.16 acres in size and located in the Fox View subdivision in far western Wildwood just off Fox Creek Road. Uh the lots in this subdivision are served by Fox View Lane, a 50-foot wide gravel uh private roadway with significant slope ascending from Fox Creek Road. Uh the lot is occupied by a single family dwelling built in 1990. It is one story and has 1,387 total um square feet of total living area. with an attached uh twocar garage and a wooden deck. Uh there is a gravel drive with two ingress egress points uh serving the residents. Uh the lower drive loops in a circle. Um you can see that in this aerial here um and serves the attached garage and then the upper drive is separate and serves the residents only. Um the lot is non- urban residence district and has a 50 foot uh front yard setback associated with it. The lot is steeply sloped uh with the property ascending from its far western corner um to its northeastern corner. Um so it's on a hill and in fact the single family dwelling is embedded into the hillside.

Uh there is a total relief on the property of 130 ft. It is heavily wooded though there the trees do thin out around the dwelling and again uh the home is embedded into the hillside. Uh here is the site plan submitted by the petitioner. Uh the petitioner is proposing to build an attached twocar garage uh with an associated stairwell to the lower garage which requires a two-foot variance from the required uh front yard setback distance. It will be positioned on an existing gravel surface requiring minimal disturbance to the unimproved portions of the lot. Um so here you can see the 50-foot setback line just the corner of this garage is over that line. Um this is the existing residence and the garage will um adjoin with the uh present attached garage in that existing gravel area. Um the garage will be 859 square ft in area. And these are the preliminary elevations. Uh this is the existing dwelling uh looking northeast from that lower gravel driveway area. This is looking southwest at Fox View Lane. Again, it's also gravel. And then this is looking northeast of Fox View Lane. Um so there is a significant slope here. Uh this is looking northwest uh towards the present existing attached garage.

This is a closer view of it in that area. So the new garage would extend into this gravel turnaround area. This is uh looking northwest here. You can see how it's embedded into the hill and so it' be partially shielded by it. Um and then again just giving you a sense of the slope here. Uh so this is from the upper driveway looking at the existing dwelling. Uh this is looking southwest. This is looking north and from this upper area. This is looking north and this is also north. Um this is looking southwest. Um here you can see that lower driveway area and this is looking northeast. and looking southeast. Uh there have been two written comments in support including the neighbor just to the north. Uh, one variance has pre previously been granted um to a property in this subdivision uh for that same neighbor um who received a front yard setback variance of 25 ft to build a single family dwelling.

And that concludes my presentation at this time. If you have any questions of the department, Director Lunich and I are available to answer them. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Keefe. Any initial questions for the department at this time? with the petitioner. Please come forward, see his or her name, address in relation to this property, and we'll get you sworn in by the court reporter.

Yeah. My name is Bill McCreary and I'm a caretaker for Tom. I'm representing him tonight. He's working in just just Tennessee. Perfect. We'll get your um your address and uh and then we'll get you sworn in. 10 Fox View Lane, Wildwood, Missouri 63069. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you.

All right, Mr. Mr. McCreary, if you could please explain the nature of the request of the hardship or practical difficulty necessitating the variance. As a reminder, you have 15 minutes to present inclusive the board's questions unless the chair allows additional time.

Yeah, it won't take that long. Uh essentially, you know, to get the twocar garage on, you know, and get the stairs to work for, you know, it pushed him over the limit 1T and 11 in. And you know, to boil it down, that's it, you know. So, I I don't know. I I'm I'm sure there would have been like um a variety of ways to do it, but every time I know that every time they looked at it, it just made the garage get smaller and smaller. And we all know that a tight garage is not good. And so that's how we ended up out that bar was making all the stairwells work, right? And you're right, it is a steep lot. And that that kind of has a little bit to do with why he's doing a two-level garage now. And it's appears that the nearest structure is a good ways away. A couple hundred feet. I think the department said

you can barely see another house in the winter. And that's Chris up the hill that I think gave his letter of approval. Y Okay. And identical to the prior request for variance. No change of circumstances, no nothing. It's just time expired. Same same. Yeah. They just I think ran into a variety of opinions on engineering and architecture and so he ran out of time. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. McCreary? All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Any speakers in the audience? Well, first any board members questions for the department or the petitioner as of yet. I asked already. Um, any speakers in the audience that may want to speak in favor or opposition to this request? MissKE, Mr. Chair, I have no speakers cards. Uh, and it looks like the individuals online um have to do with other applications. All right. Um, would anybody like to hear the department's um report via oral presentation? Seeing none, um, department like to make any final, uh, comments? Uh,

Mr. Chair, members of the board, I'll keep this brief. Uh, we're talking about a twoft, uh, variance with just the corner. Um, it's very minimal impact, especially given uh, the isolated nature of where this lot is located. And, uh, clearly uh, there's, um, significant topography to deal with as well. Um, and it's it's basically shielded. um just by nature of of how it's embedded into the hillside. Thank you. Uh we do support it. Thank you. Any final comments from the board? All right. We'll close the proceeding for a vote. Can I have a motion to approve? A motion to deny or a motion to approve with conditions.

I'll make a motion to approve. Thank you, Mr. Lux. Do we have a second? A second. Thank you, Mr. Morris. Uh Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lux, approve. Mr. Lee, approve. Mr. Sprunger. Approve. And I approve as well. Congratulations. Your variance is approved as submitted. Thank you. Next garage. It's a big night for garages, huh?

The third item on our agenda tonight is BA5-26 Kathleen Pullman 1871 18741. Everton Valley Road, Wildwood, Missouri 630005. Request an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of constructing a 34 footx 28T addition to an existing detached garage being upon the property located at 18741 Etherton Valley Road. Locator number 19W5200061 Etherton Valley subdivision lot 3 which would thereby authorize a sideyard setback distance of 23 ft in l of 30 ft for the sub from the subject property line. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.090 NU non- urban resident district regulations of the Wildwood zoning ordinance. This particular property is located in Ward three. And again, before Miss Keith begins her presentation, the department would like to enter into the record the following items. Chapter 400, article 2 of the City of Wildwood Municipal Code, Board of Adjustment. Chapter 415 of the same city of Wildwood Municipal Code, the zoning ordinance, the file that has been developed and maintained by the Department of Planning regarding this particular request and all contents contained therein, including the department's report with recommendation. And then finally, Mr. Chair, any testimony or evidence that is provided as part of tonight's hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Munich. Miss Keefe.

All right, Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the board, our next case uh this evening involves a subject site that is 3.11 acres in size and located in the Etherton Valley subdivision, which is located in northeastern Wildwood uh close to the Orville Historic Community um just south of Wild Horse Creek Road. Um this subdivision was approved in 1978 by St. Louis County and consists of 21 lots. um all which are 3 acres or greater in size. The subject property is located on the north side of Etherton Valley Road uh which is a 50- foot wide private roadway maintained by the homeowners association. It's occupied by a single family dwelling that is one story and was built in 1978 with 1,866 square ft of total living area. Other improvements include a detached garage, which is 1,089 square ft in size, and a circular driveway. The lot is zoned non- urban residence district, which requires a 50-foot front yard setback and a 30-foot sideyard setback distance. Uh the lot does have varied topography with its highest elevation at the southeastern corner um towards the front of the lot. and then descending northwest um towards the rear of the property or yeah like northeast actually. Uh there is 78 ft of overall relief. Uh the lot is heavily wooded uh with lawn area in front and dispersed trees.

Uh here is the existing garage. Um this is the existing detached garage and this is the existing dwelling. Uh the proposed garage is here in light blue. Uh you might notice that the existing garage is 25 ft um off the sideyard setback line and that is due to uh St. Louis County having a 20 foot sideyard set back uh while city of Wildwood has a 30foot uh for its non-urban residence district. Um so we already have a a garage that's kind of in that sideyard setback area. Uh the petitioners are asking to construct or to expand the existing garage um by 952 square ft uh and placing it in the front of uh the existing um and it will be served by the existing driveway. Uh the expanded portion will be 23 feet um off the sideyard uh property line. Uh the new addition is to match with the existing and this is the southern elevation of it. Uh this is the northern elevation. This is the eastern elevation and this is the western elevation. Uh this is looking at the front of the dwelling and the detached garage looking north. Uh this is the neighbor across the street looking south. Uh this is looking east on Etherton Valley Road. And this is looking west.

This is looking northeast into the front yard of the subject lot. This is looking northwest towards the detached garage. This is looking um northeast. This is standing back where the detached garage is located and looking towards uh Etherton Valley uh road looking southwest. So you can see you're kind of sunk down into the lot. Uh this is looking west behind the structure. This is looking north um at the topography just behind the residence and detached garage. This is looking south again giving you a sense of how far you're back into the lot. And this is looking west um into the area of the proposed addition. Uh there have been five uh total setback variances approved in the same subdivision with two variances for the same lot. So you can see uh where those are located here. Um and there is uh public support for the request. uh emails have been submitted from all of the most affected neighbors and uh the HOA has also given their support.

At this time, I'll conclude my presentation and if you have any uh questions of the department, we're available to answer them. Thank you, Miss Keefe. Any initial questions for the department. Okay. Will the petitioner please come forward, state his or her name, address, relationship to the property, and we'll get you sworn in. Yeah, I'm on the Zoom. Can you Can you hear me? I can hear you. Yes, we Yes, we can. Go, please state your name and go. Gary Pilman. We live at 18741 Valley Road 6305. The address of the petition,

raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you.

Mr. Pullman, if you will, please um explain the nature of the request and the hardship or practical difficulty in necessitating this variance. Um as a reminder, you have 15 minutes to present inclusive of the board's questions unless the chair allows additional time. Floor is yours. The uh request is for an extension to the existing detached garage. As you could see, uh several other areas were examined on the property uh to build a garage, but were not feasible because of the uh the lay of the property and where they'd have to be built and cost involved in foundations because of that. um the great elevations. Uh this would be the best and I it can't be moved west. I mean it can't be moved east any further because our driveway is there. Uh and I'm kind of trapped in between that that point and the property line. The original subdivision, as was stated earlier, had a 20 foot setback, and that detached garage was built and approved by county before the city of Wildwood existed. Uh we would now like to extend that and conform with the with 23 feet from the property line so we can build that garage and still get out because the driveway is sloped right at the corner and it kind of falls right in that area. That's about all I can. And we're going to match the existing siding and everything to the garage, the shingles and everything will be will be matched.

I saw a note about the um trees. If you can you speak to to any tree removal that would be necessary. Well, there were several trees that had asht tree and elm trees that have been um killed by insects or the elm disease and they were cut down. Uh they're not completely removed yet, but they were um they were dead to the point we had to cut those down anyway because they were high enough they could fall on the existing garage. But there will be no more trees taken out other than the ones that were already dead.

Anybody have any questions for the petitioner? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pman. Thank you. Any uh speakers in the audience, Miss Keefe, um or online that would speak in favor or opposition to this request? Uh at this time, if anyone would like to speak uh for this request, please use the raise hand feature. It looks like we don't have any individuals online, anyone in the audience. Mr. Chair, we have no speakers. Okay, seeing none, would anybody like the opportunity to hear an oral presentation of the department's report?

Seeing none, um any final comments by the department,

Mr. chair, members of the board, uh the department is uh supporting this request. Uh we do see a practical difficulty to the petitioner and that the existing garage is located where it is due to St. Louis County setback distances. So, it's logical um that that would affect the addition as well. Um it we're supportive of the fact that the addition is in an already improved space. we're not having to disturb other areas of the site which do have um you know more challenging uh topography to deal with. Uh the variance is relatively minimal and the neighbors and HOA are in support. Thank you.

Any other final comments or questions board? Thank you Miss Keef. This time we'll close the proceeding for a vote. Can I have a motion to approve? Have a motion to deny or a motion to approve with conditions. I'll motion to approve. I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Lux. And Mr. Lee, uh, Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lux, approve. Mr. Morris, I'm sorry, Mr. Lee. Approve. Mr. Sprunger, approve. And I approve as well. Congratulations. Your variance is approved. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And please proceed with the I believe the final petition for this evening. Is that correct?

Yes, Mr. Chair. The final petition on tonight's agenda is BA6-26 Selma and Taft Davis, 18459 Hanken Valley Estates Drive, Wildwood, Missouri 63069. requests an exception to the natural resource protection requirements for the purpose of constructing a new threecar detached garage, a building determined by the zoning ordinance totaling 864 square ft in area with such being located upon the property at 18459 Hanken Valley Estates Drive, located number 26X 120161 Hen Valley Estates Reubdivision, lot 11, which would authorize its construction construction within the 25- ft foundation setback area from the natural resource protection area of the lot, but not within the 100% protected area itself. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 420.200 200 natural resource protection standards and procedures of the subdivision and development regulations of the city of Wildwood Municipal Code as applied to property located in the NU non-urban resident district and chapter 415.090 NU non-urban resident district regulations of the Wildwood zoning ordinance. This particular property is located in Ward 6. And again, before Miss Keith be begins her presentation, the department would like to introduce into the record the following items. Chapter 400, article 2 of the City of Wildwood Municipal Code Board of Adjustment. Chapter 415 of the same city of Wildwood municipal code, the zoning ordinance, the file that has been developed and maintained by the department of planning regarding this particular request and all contents contained therein, including the department's

recommend report with recommendation and then finally any testimony or evidence that is provided as part of tonight's hearing. Thank you. Thank you, director. Miss Keefe.

All right, Mr. Chair, members of the board, our last case this evening involves a subject site that is 3 acres in uh sized and located uh in the Henin Valley Estate Reubdivision. It is located in far western Wildwood just off of Highway 100. Uh the lot uh the subject lot has 623 feet of width at its front building line along Hanken Valley Estates Drive which is a privately maintained roadway by the HOA. So you can see it has a significant curve here and this is um the lots um front building one. Um it is the lot is zoned non- urban residence district which does require a 50 foot uh front yard setback, a 30-foot uh side and rear yard setback and also um this lot is governed by the natural resource protection standards um which do protect a significant portion of this lot uh 94% of it in fact or 2.8 acres. Uh there is a single family that was constructed on this lot with uh in 2007 with 4,000 square feet of gross living area. Uh the request this evening is to allow the construction of a threecar garage which encroaches into the 25- ft foundation setback area uh from the uh from the final resource protection line or the natural resource protection area. Um no disturbance uh is requested uh to the 100% protected portion of the lot which is everything outside of this

dotted line here. So this is all 100% protected and the proposed garage is in between uh the final resource protection line and uh the foundation setback line. Uh the placement of the garage is where the attached garage is currently situated upon the existing dwelling. Um and it is served by the driveway uh here. Uh, two stories are planned for this proposed garage uh with the second story housing um having a finished area for use by the petitioners. This is looking northeast uh at the dwelling. Uh this is looking northwest at Hanken Valley Estates Drive and this is looking southeast. This is looking northwest. And then this is the other side of the dwelling looking northeast. And this is looking northeast as well. This is the area of the proposed garage. or rather this area here. This is looking northeast. This is looking northwest behind the dwelling. This is looking southwest from the area of the proposed garage. And this is just slightly more south.

Um, this is looking over the front yard of the petitioner's dwelling at the circular driveway. Uh, there has been three written comments uh received in support of the request from other neighbors in the same subdivision. Uh there have been five variances in the subdivision that have been granted relating to natural resource uh protection area adjustments. And that concludes my presentation. Uh do the board members have any questions at the department at this time? Actually I do have a quick question. So, I didn't realize there was a setbacks on natural resource protection lines. What's the what's the rationale for a 25- ft setbacks or foundations?

Yes. So, the foundation setback um has to do with with buildings generally. Uh so so petitioners can typically build swimming pools and other types of improvements that are less permanent in nature. Um but I I believe the idea is to prevent disturbance um to the protected area itself. Okay. But in this particular case, for them to build anything, they're going to be in the setback area because it looks like that line is they have very they almost have no options to build anything in that particular location.

Yeah, cuz when I look at the 25 ft setback, there's not a whole lot of room in there. Yep, that is correct. There's a pretty substantial protected area upon this lot, right? Got it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Keef. At this time, will the petitioner please come forward, state his or her name, address, and relationship to the property, and we'll get you sworn in by the court reporter. Hello, my name is Tyrone Anderson. I am the general contractor for my client, the Davis family. Um, my address is 1782 Lane. Uh, what brought us here today was that um,

just will give you sworn in, Mr. Tremerson. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Mr. Emerson, if you could please explain the nature of the request, the hardship, or practical difficulty necessitating the variance. Um, as a reminder, you have 15 minutes inclusive of the board's questions uh, unless the chair allows additional time.

Yes. Uh so upon submitting the uh building application for the property, it was determined that the setback line would it was recommended that it would be moved 24 in for uh encroachment reasons to make sure that we didn't encroach on that natural resource protection area while building the property. Uh upon further review, it was determined that that would be necessary and that we would still need the variance to build on the proposed location. However, we would not need to move the setback line 24 in

and and as Mr. Sprunger um discussed any or any other options considered. Um no, this was really the design plan that the homeowner had their heart set on. So there was no changes to the plan made just yet.

Yeah. Any questions, comments? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Emerson. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other speakers in the audience that may want to speak in favor or opposition to this request? Miss Keefe. Uh, Mr. Chair, I have no speakers cards and we have no attendees left online. Okay. Anybody like to hear the oral presentation of the department's report? Seeing none, um, any final comments from the department?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the board, the department of planning is supporting this particular variance as Miss Keith identified in her presentation of slides. Approximately 92% of the site or 94% of the site is in protection and therefore the only areas that are available is approximately 8600 square ft of which about 4,000 square ft is already occupied by the single family dwelling. I think a important point too that the department used to in its recommendation its favorable recommendation was the fact that the actual protected area of the lot will remain unchanged. So tonight again the department is recommending the board consider this request favorable. There any questions the department miss and I will be glad to answer them at this time. Thank you.

Thank you director. Any other final comments from the board? All right. At this time, we will close the proceeding for a vote. Can I have a motion to approve it to deny or approve the conditions? I'll make a motion to Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Mr. Morris, can you state that again, please? I'll make a motion to approve it. Do we have a second? I'll second. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lux, approve. Mr. Lee, approve.

Mr. Sprunger approve and I approve as well. Congratulations. Your variance is approved. Thank you. I believe that brings us to few items of business on tonight's agenda. Uh the first is to approve the minutes of the board's January 15, 2026 meeting. Do I have a motion to approve those meeting those minutes? No. Motion to approve. Second. I'll say I be Mr. Morris approve. Mr. Lux approve. Mr. Lee approve. Mr. Scrunger approve.

And I approve the minutes as well. And the last item of business is the election of officers. And I'm supposed to instruct the department to present. Please present.

Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh every year uh this board does hold elections for its officer positions. Uh last year uh we eliminated the secretary position. So now now we just have chair and vice chair. Uh I have received interest from both of the um those holding these positions uh that they would like to continue to do so. Um, however, at this time, if there are any other, uh, interested parties or nominations from the floor, uh, those can certainly be accepted as well. Thank you.

Intentional silence. Yes. Well, if you would like, uh, why would not? If you would like, uh, you can, uh, make a motion to accept them both as a slate or you can divide it into two separate motions to, uh, to consider each one individually. I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve the slate with my complete and utter conviction in their favor. Mr. Chair, that slate would be Mr. Frank as chair and Mr. Lux as vice chair. Mr. Pro. Oh Mr. Sprunger is vice chair. Oh, I almost got in.

Denied again. So, do we have do we have a a second for to keep the slate? I'll second that. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lux, approve. Mr. Lee, approve. Mr. Sprunger, approve. And I approve as well. So, those well, the slate, as we're calling it, will remain the same for this uh for this term. Thank you. Any other items to mention to? Thank you very much for your service. We appreciate it. Thank you. Please consider this meeting a jerk.