Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

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 will recognize you at the appropriate time for the presentation of evidence for each case. If in person this evening, please hand staff your speakers 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'd like to call the meeting of the city of board wildwoods board of adjustment to order. The board members present today are Bob Morris, board member, Kevin Lux, board member, Arie Sprunger, board member, Mike Lee, board member, and myself, Jared Frank, chair. The Department of Planning staff present this evening is Joe Vunich, director of planning, and Robin Keefe, planner, and court reporter Becky Tugle are also present. City attorney Addison Wheeler is joining us via Zoom. First, I offer into the record of the affidavit of publication pertaining to today's meeting, April 16th, 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 that the information I am about to describe is also provided on the board of adjustments public hearing procedure handout, which was available online prior and up to tonight's meeting. This hearing is informal in its nature. However, the meeting's proceedings will be recorded by a 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 in 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, 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 to 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 expended 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 and address, be sworn in, and 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 the 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 person 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 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? Uh, Mr. Chair, there are no attendees online. Is there any questions? Mr. Chair, I see no questions. Seeing no questions, this meeting will proceed. Please read the first request in the record, which will be followed by a brief slide presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, members of the board, the first item is BA10-26 Scott and Janice Liddell, 18626 Thistle Hill Road, Wildwood, Missouri 63038. requests an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of constructing a concrete block retaining wall with a maximum height of 8.5 ft upon the property located at 18626 Thistle Hill Road located number 25X130134 estates at August Tavern Creek Plat 2 lot 20 which would thereby authorize a sideyard setback distance of 16 ft in lie of 30 ft from the eastern property line. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.090 NU non- urban district regulations of the Wildwood zoning ordinance. The this posting for the hearing is the second of such actions on this matter. This particular property is located in Ward six. And Mr. Chair, with your permission, before Miss Keefe begins 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 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, sir.

Thank you, Director Gunish.

All right, Mr. Chair, members of the board, our first case this evening uh has been heard by a couple of you uh at our last meeting. Uh this request was postponed due to technical experience uh technical difficulties experienced by the applicant, but they were present and they are present today. Uh the subject site in question is 3 acres in size and part of the estates at August Creek uh subdivision plat 2. It is located on the south side of Melrose Road west of Highway 100. Uh the subdivision has 27 total lots and plat 2 of it was approved in 2000 by the city of Wildwood. The subject lot uh is zoned non- urban uh residence district uh which does require a 30foot sideyard setback. Uh the lot has 260 ft of frontage along Thistle Hill Road which does uh terminate into a culde-sac along it. Uh this is a private roadway with a 40 foot wide easement maintained by the homeowners association. The lot is triangular in shape with 260 ft of width and 772 ft of length. There is a single family dwelling upon it that was built in 2023 with 3,855 square ft of total living area. Other improvements include a driveway, porch, and attached garage. Uh the lot is steeply sloped descending from the high point of the ridge at the northeast corner of it uh where the dwelling is located to the southwest

corner of the property. It has 96 ft of total relief. Uh the property is heavily wooded with lawn area uh surrounding the immediate area of the dwelling. Uh the request from the petitioner is to construct a new retaining wall uh behind the dwelling which would have a maximum height of 8 1/2 ft. Uh they're requesting an eastern sideyard setback distance of 16 feet in lie of the 30 required by the non- urban residence district. The portion of wall that is located within the setback area is just 6 ft in height. And this is important to note because boundary walls 6 feet or less in height are permitted in the setback area. But in this instance, uh the department considers the entire wall a single structure and therefore that 8 and 1/2 ft. Um though it's within that building envelope comes into play here and requires the variance. Uh the purpose of the wall according to the applicant is to serve as a built-in drainage system for the property and provide more yard space for them. Uh this is the front of the dwelling. Uh we're looking slightly um we're looking south and slightly east. Uh here we're looking towards the culde-sac looking west. Uh this is Thistle Hill Road. This is looking northeast on Thistle Hill Road. And this is looking across it north. This is looking south upon the petitioner's driveway to the residence.

This is looking southeast towards the neighboring property. And this is looking southwest. Uh this is looking south from the petitioner's yard. This is looking southwest. Uh here I believe we're standing to the rear of the dwelling. Uh here we're looking west. Uh this is the rear of the residence. Uh this is looking north towards the attached garage and driveway area. Uh this is looking east or sorry this is east of the dwelling but looking north. Uh apologies. Uh there uh uh there are two neighbors opposed to this request. uh one is the directly affected neighbor um and then one is a resident uh that is in uh the notification area but not directly abuing the property. Uh there was also one uh resident seeking clarification on certain matters. Uh that concludes my presentation at this time. If you have any questions of director Vunich uh or I uh we're available to answer them. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Keith. Any initial questions for the department?

Uh, just to clarify quickly, you said that they were here last time. This is not a continuation of that. This is considered a fresh start just because of staffing by the board. Just want to clarify it was a postponement because they were not able to present. Thank you. Would you mind putting back up the slide that shows the actual retaining wall and how much it you know sticks into the setback? Absolutely.

Perfect. And so the part that sticks into the setback is on the side of the the neighbor directly affected. Right. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Keef. At this time, will the petitioner please come forward, state his or her name, address, relation to the property, and we'll get you sworn in by the court reporter. Hi Janice Sladell, 18626 Bissell Hill. Yeah, you sworn in.

Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth will help begun. Zell, if you could please explain the nature of the request, the hardship or practical difficulty necessitating the variance. Uh, as a reminder, you have 15 minutes to present inclusive of the board's questions unless the chair allows for additional time.

Sure. Um, I'm just requesting an exception just in the fact that um, we since the new construction, the water from the driveway goes down our driveway and it's just been rocks and actually I asked for um, removal of trees, but those since have fallen down because of the water. Um, and those are all sitting there. I um just wanted to utilize the whole backyard and just have a flat wall straight across. If you notice on the right side of the picture, that's our septic system and our um our sewer system. So, we didn't want to interfere with any of that. Um, and then we have a border Cali that likes to run and since the dog park is closed now we uh we're limited to area and with and for kids just utilizing our space with family and for friends. So those are the reasons.

Any questions from the board? Yeah, maybe just a couple real quick ones. Um, so the yellow line that's on the diagram up there, that's the setback line. Is that correct? Yeah. It looks like it it goes right on up beside or right adjacent to your concrete correct

driveway. Yeah. Is there any particular reason why you couldn't put the retaining wall right on that line as well? Well, the reason why I wanted to go a little bit further was to utilize space and also for that runoff for the water that from the driveway, the edge of the driveway. Just thinking that that would help with the drainage system that it would just go into the yard instead of like down the hill, down the retaining wall, that type of thing.

Robin, do you have a plan you can throw up here? That is like a the most gentle slope on that side too. So that would be not as tall as the other side. So it it basically comes straight down the driveway. Correct. And I have a second question. Um so as you probably read, there's been some opposition to what you're doing. Um, have you talked to your neighbors at all about

I tented. Um, I like the first time we were going on vacation and then they had a big rainstorm. So, um, I did talk to a couple of the neighbors, but I didn't weren't able to get I don't actually know the exact neighbor. There are several people at that house. I don't know exactly which neighbor that is. We've only lived there for two years. Okay. All right. So, you weren't able to have a conversation with them about what you're trying to do. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. You're welcome. Any other questions for the petitioner? Thank you.

At this time, uh, any 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 the board's questions unless the chair allows additional time. Seeing none, would anybody like to hear an oral presentation of the department's report? Seeing none, uh does department want to make any final comments?

Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the board, uh the department of planning is uh supporting this variance request. Uh as noted earlier in my presentation, uh walls six feet or less in height are are allowed in setback areas. This one, however, is a a larger structure that extends into the bu building envelope, and that's where it gets a little higher than we allow per the city's regulations. And so, the way we consider it is the whole structure. Um, and that's what how it's interpreted. Uh, as noted by the applicant, there is a drainage um issue on the property. uh the the city um the department of planning and public works will certainly ensure uh that the retaining wall is in fact going to assist with that um with that issue. Um finally we see that there is a heavily uh there's a heavy tree buffer on the property. It is significantly sloped. Um there is a clear um hardship in terms of the challenging topography of the property. Uh so we are supporting the request. Thank you.

Any questions? Final questions from the department

to clarify since the last wall that we reviewed the height of the wall is to the bottom of the retaining wall mater materials, right? Not finish grade. Uh in this instance, we calculated the height of the wall based upon the information provided on the submitted plan which showed the top of wall and and bottom of wall details. So we premised it on the submitted information. The one on Striker Road was a little unusual as you know because of the circumstances relating to the right of way. So again, we we base the actually visual.

Yes. So in this case, we just went with the information on the submitted in plan. Thank you. And and Miss Keef, did you just to be clear, the portion that's in the setback area is not 8 ft. that according to the information submitted by the petitioner, it's six feet in that area. It's six feet in that area. Okay. So, okay. Right. So, if the topography of the yard were able to have that six foot go all the way across, we no variance would even be required. Correct.

That's correct, sir. So from the aeropotography that had the topographic information associated with it, the the steepness of the slope is from the driveway side of the house and I'm going to call it to the right. I think the north arrow shows the actually the at the bottom, but make a long try not to confuse things. the slope increases as you go from the right side of the photograph to the left. And so that's why the wall has to basically transition from 6 ft to 8 plus feet.

Right. And also you said I mean it looks like from the aerial pictures here there's quite a bit of tree buffer between the petitioner and the adjacent property owner. Ba based on my visual assessment when I went out to the property, I I would say yes. It is pretty heavily wooded.

Is it is it like evergreen type stuff? Cuz when I think about visual visual um screening and so forth, you know, in the winter time, all the leaves are off and so you can now see through just fine. But if there's evergreens, then that helps mask or screen that. I don't believe it was evergreens, but we would have to review the photo exhibit to be absolutely sure. It sounds like from the audience, from the petitioner, there are no evergreens.

And approximately how far is the distance from where the wall would end to the next residence? I know it's there's a buffer and everything, but are we talking 100 feet, 300 feet? If you'll give me just a moment, I'll make that calculation real quick. Sure. Or if you just have a visual, you can throw it up, I can guesstimate whatever's easiest.

M keys, as Miss Keef pulls that up, any other final comments, questions, concerns? Yeah, I guess just, you know, to be sensitive to the adjacent property owner, um has did the department, you know, consider maybe having a uh a requirement to put in some additional screening right in that area that that would be uh more evergreen in nature, you know, that would provide screening year round. Is that is that a reasonable thing to think about or or not in this case?

Mr. Springer, I cannot speak for Miss Keef, but the when did it when I did the assessment of the impact um it was three-fold. First, the encroachment into the setback is actually six feet or less, meaning the height of the wall, which is, as Miss Keith mentioned, would have would have been allowed regardless if not the portion of the wall exceeding that. Second, um the adjoining neighbor, their house is not at the 30-foot setback relative to its position to the existing home as you can see. And then third, if we were to do any landscaping, I'm afraid just the shade from the existing tall deciduous trees are going to probably not I just don't see it being a a successful planting and so the limited nature of the encroachment was the key factor in the support of the department.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I believe it was your question. Uh just to answer that definitively, it's just shy of 200 ft away from where the wall would approximately end. Thank you, Miss Keith. You're good. I'm good. Thank you. Okay, seeing no final comments at this time, we will close the proceeding for a vote. Can I have a motion to approve? A motion to deny or approve with conditions.

I'll make a motion to approve. Do we have a second to approve? I'll second that. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lux, approve. Mr. Sprunger, I'll approve. Mr. Lee, approve. Then I approve as well. Congratulations. Your variance is approved. Will the department please read the next uh petition into the record?

Yes, Mr. Chair. The second item on tonight's agenda is BA11-26 Free Rain Academic E Academic Enterprises LLC Wildwood Early Learning Center 16930 Manchester Road, Wildwood, Missouri 63040, Care of Mark Greenley, Horizon Sign Company, excuse me. 1011 Hanley Industrial Court, St. Louis, Missouri 63144. requests an exception to business signs monument for the purpose of installing new sign graphics onto the existing structure which is located on the property at 16930 Manchester Road located number 24V520606 Main Street Plaza easement and dedication which would thereby authorize a white background with dark lettering along with an an internal lighting source in lie of an an external type. request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.420 sign regulations for all CNM districts of the city of Wildwood zoning ordinance, chapter 415.180 C2 Shopee district regulations of the same city of Wildwood zoning ordinance and St. Louis County conditional use permit parenthetical cup number 625 parenthetical PC76-89 the Grover Company. This particular property is located in Ward 8. And again, as with the last case, before Miss Keefe begins the presentation of slides, the department would like to enter into the record the following items. 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, Mr. Chair, any testimony or evidence that is provided as part of tonight's hearing. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Bish, Miss Keith.

Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the board, our next case involves a subject site that is a commercial center located within the city's uh historic Grover area. Uh this area is along um the commercial center is located along our historic Route 66 or Manchester Road. Uh surrounding businesses to it include Three French Hens, Bowwin Sinclair Auto, Larry's Tavern, uh businesses of that nature. Uh to the east of the property is the Grover Crossing subdivision which is a residential subdivision. Um and this is our Wildwood Town Center uh per our plan. Uh there are currently uh two tenants located at this center uh which include a child care tenant uh which um consumes most of the building and a dentist office. Um the child care tenant owns the property to the west of the subject property uh which is used as a play area for the center. Uh the subject lot is 1.29 acres in overall area uh with a site with a high site coverage ratio of improvements um which would include the parking area and building um and surrounding infrastructure. It is zoned the C2 shopping district with a conditional use permit. This was approved by St. Louis County in 1989. Uh the building was also constructed in 18 in 1989 and consists of 11,000 square ft of leasable space. Um and again it is served by a parking lot with 60 spaces. It also has storm water management facilities um and an existing non-conforming but

legal monument sign um as important to this case. So here you can see a site plan for the property. Um here's the main building. Here is all the parking and this area right here is the location of the existing monument sign for the center. Um, it should be noted that the city uh removed as part of its town center plan uh the monument type sign for commercial uh uses from being um authorized along Manchester Road. And this was a desire to encourage only wall and post and arm types to make the roadway less automobile oriented and more pedestrian scaled. Um so hence why the monumented sign is non-conforming today. Um the petitioners are requesting uh to utilize the existing monument sign um for a new uh representation rec uh recognizing uh the tenants in the building versus the name of the commercial center. Sorry, I'm losing my place here. Um I would also mention uh that the tenants are requesting that this representation have a light background and dark lettering in lie of uh the regulations which require a dark background and light lettering along with retaining the internal lighting that's already uh within the monument sign uh versus using external types only. Uh this is the existing monument sign as you look west along Manchester Road. This is looking east upon Manchester

Road uh with the existing monument sign to the right here. Um a wall sign not the subject of this variance is also planned uh by the petitioners. Uh that would correspond with the monument type. Um, and this is the location of the wall sign. Uh, this is looking from the center parking drive, um, out across Manchester Road across the street. And that's looking north. Uh, this is looking southeast towards the Grover Crossing uh, subdivision. And this is looking south at the building um, and parking area out front as a whole. Uh there have been five letters of support from uh mostly surrounding businesses. I think also a resident along Manchester Road and then one individual expressed um opposition uh located within the Grover Crossing subdivision. Uh that concludes my presentation at this time. If you have any questions of the department, we're available to answer them. Thank you.

Go ahead. Yeah, Robin, I have a question. You said that the existing sign is internally lit or does it have lights that shine upon it? Uh, I believe there's an existing internal lighting with associated with it. Okay. Any other questions initially for the department? Thank you, M. Keith. At this time, will the petitioner please come forward, state his or her name, address, relationship to this property, and then we'll get you sworn in by the court reporter.

My name is Joe Ders. I'm the uh res uh tenant and sorry, operator and property owner at 16930 Manchester Road. I currently reside outside of Wildwood City Limits, but I used to live off of uh Point Clayton subdivision. Did you sworn? Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you guide? We'll go ahead and get the other gentlemen as well sworn in. That way you guys can can can speak freely. Go ahead. Okay. I'm Mark Greenley. I'm with Horizon Sign Company.

Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Yeah.

Go ahead, gentlemen. If I could read a short statement and then address the hardship question that was presented requested to the petitioner pre prior to me. Uh thank you Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Joe Ders, business and property owner at 16930 Manchester Road. For the past 10 years, my wife and I have operated Wildwood Early Learning Center on Old Manchester Road. The school's enrollment was around 45 children when we acquired it and will exceed 85 this year. We are proud to offer an important service for the working families raising children in Wildwood. We're very excited going to need these. We're very excited about the developments going on in and around the city and believe the additional residences will contribute to the future success of our business. We thank you for any support you've had contributed to that. Based on the recent growth that we have experienced in our confidence with respect to the development ongoing, we purchased our building in September of 2025. Since our purchase, we have made significant investments in cosmetic upgrades with a new color scheme, a new roof, and multiple other improvements. We are before you tonight to request approval for a variance to the sign requirements as they relate to the same monument sign that has been on this property for 30 years. over that time is it has suffered from a lack of maintenance and we would like to rectify that without a significant departure from its current style. Last night I was very pleased to see the Department of Planning's recommendation of an approval with restrictions. I don't anticipate any problem with proposed conditions and I humbly request your approval of our submission. Thank you for your time. With respect to the hardship, I would point to the existing condition of the sign that you saw in the slideshow. Um, and point out that the although the ex the thing that makes our sign not comply is white background, dark lettering internal wiring electronics. That is

exactly what we're proposing. White background, dark lettering, interior electronics. So, not much of a departure from what's already been there for a very long time. just upgrading it for 2026. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner? Okay. Any other any other comments? I don't know that I have all that much to add other than, you know, as a sign guy, other other than as a sign guy, we believe that, you know, the light background with the colors that you see complements very nicely the wall sign that the city graciously approved of permitting for and is already on the wall. So and the uh the restrictions in the report timing all that that's not timing

that's not an issue to to easily that's not an issue at all. Right. Yeah. Okay. Thank you gentlemen. At this time we would like to open the floor to speakers in the audience who may want to speak in favor or opposition to this request. As a reminder each speaker has five minutes inclusive of the board's questions unless the chair allows additional time. Uh, Mr. Chair, I have no individuals online uh who aren't representing the city. Uh, and I have no speakers cards.

Would anybody like to hear uh an oral presentation of the department's report? Seeing none, uh, would the department like to make any final comments?

Yes, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. The Department of Planning is endorsing a favorable consideration of this particular variance request. The department in its findings of facts identify that the sign in its current form has been at that location at least 30 years if not longer and the changes that are proposed are improvements. So from a standpoint of impacts, the department believes it'll be minimal. Also, as part of the Manchester Road streetscape project phase three, the city of Wildwood did need additional easements from this particular property owner and the sign was accommodated at its current location due to the fact that we did need additional easements. So, when you see the photographs, you notice it's right at the edge of sidewalk. That's because we work with the property owners to achieve that. that impact is driven more by the city of Wildwood, not the petitioner. So from that standpoint, we don't believe it's a factor. And then finally, there are additional monument signs that have been in place on Manchester Road for many years and will be will be in place for the future. So this will not be an exception per se and from that perspective we will not be creating a outlier and a potential problem for the future. So with those findings of facts and the others identified including the request for lighting um components to comply with the city regulations and other um the department is recommending uh a favorable action tonight. If there are any questions of the board Miss Keefe and I would be glad to try to answer them at this time. Thank you.

Thank you DJ. Any questions for Director Munich? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, we will close the proceeding for a vote. Can I have a motion to approve to deny or approve with conditions? I'll make a motion to approve the variance request with conditions outlined in point number five of the finding of facts section of the report. Thank you, Mr. Stronger. Do we have a second to that? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lux, approve. Mr. Sprunger,

approve. Mr. Lee, approve. And I as well approve. Congratulations. Your variance is approved with the conditions outlined. Thank you. Please proceed with the next uh request.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair. The third item on tonight's agenda is BA12-26. Lauren Zki, Clayton Woods Court, Wildwood, Missouri 63040. requests an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of reconstructing and expanding an existing front porch and constructing a second story addition above the existing first floor area of the dwelling with these improvements to be located upon the property at 1537 Clayton Woods Road 300 Stricker Road located 22U 510413 Clayton Woods lot 5 which would thereby authorize a front yard setback distance of 2.5 ft in lie of 25 ft required by the record plat. This request is contrary to the requirements of the record plat chapter 415.130R2 15,000t resident district regulations and land environment unit parenthetical peu ordinance number 14168 which was approved by the St. Louis County Council in 1988. This subject dwelling, the Ben Bomber House, was built in 1891 and listed on the Wildwood Historic Register in 2011. Given its protected status, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed alterations and additions to the historic reg residence at its regular meeting on March 26, 2026 and issued a certificate of appropriateness for them after unanimous approval of the members. Given the building was constructed well before zoning regulations were applied to property, approximately a third of it is already situated within the front yard setback area and also encroaches into a 10- foot wide utility easement that parallels Stucker Road. This particular property is located in W 2. And as with the

previous two cases, before Miss Keith begins the presentation of slides, the department would like to enter into the record the following items. Chapter 400, article two, board of adjustment of the city of Wildwood Municipal Code. Chapter 415, the zoning ordinance of the city of Wildwood Municipal Code. The file that been 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 hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, director Benich.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, our next request this evening is located in the far eastern portion of Wildwood, north of Highway 100 at the intersection of Strucker and Clayton uh Strucker Road and Clayton Woods Court. um which consequently are both addressed to this property with the historical address at 300 Strucker Road and uh the um current address at 1537 Clayton Woods Court. Um the dwelling located on this lot um uh fronts onto Strucker Road. It is uh just over a half an acre in size. uh with double frontage on both roads. Um as noted, the subject lot is occupied by a single family dwelling that was built in 1891 prior to any zoning regulations being adopted uh for the property. Um it is now uh zoned R2 15,000 square foot residence district and has a planned environment environmental unit uh associated with it um that was approved by St. Louis County in 1988. Um according to uh the um according to the record plat uh the residence uh does have a building line at 25 ft from Strucker Road uh 20 ft from Clayton Woods Court and um according to the zoning regulations um applied to this lot, it has a 10-ft sideyard uh setback distance as well. Uh the subject uh dwelling sits at top a

hill uh which you can see here. Uh there is 18 ft of total relief. Um but it does slope downward from the dwelling in um in all directions of the property. The subject dwelling as noted in the agenda language um was placed on the Wildwood local registry. So it is a Wildwood Historic Landmark uh one of 14. It is known as the Ben Bomber House and uh was designated um a landmark in 2011. Uh the house is historically significant. Uh Ben Bomber was a farmer uh that uh built this house in 1891. At that time the house uh stood on 80 acres of property. Uh Mr. Bomber uh labored on this land for many years and eventually he retired after which uh the house went deteriorated went through a series of owners alterations and additions and um and the last group of owners have since restored and improved upon the dwellings's appearance. It is of the queen and architectural style which is the decorative type popular from the 1880s to the 1910. According to the city's architectural consultant, uh this is more of a subdued uh subdued type of the style. Uh she calls it a folk Victorian style farmhouse versus a more elaborate type. Uh according to our former St. Louis County historian Ezie Hamilton, uh these types of structures uh given their construction and relative scarcity um with many lost now to new residential development are significant.

So, uh we are thankful it has been preserved. Uh the co current owners are requesting to substantially upgrade and restore um the uh the historic home with a number of improvements to it um including many additions um in both living areas and porches. And so what you see before you um uh gives an outline of the original uh house that was built in 1891. Uh several additions to it that were built in the 1970s as well as the proposed uh new additions to it as well. Uh when all is said and done, uh this is what the front of the dwelling will look like. Uh this is its right side. This is the rear right side and this is the rear left. Uh because this home uh is protected by city of Wildwood ordinance, uh it does go through uh an extra layer of review uh conducted by the historic preservation commission. Um this review only applies to exterior alter alterations to the dwelling um but must be authorized before it can go forward. Uh the historic preservation commission enthusiastically endorsed uh the plans uh submitted by the petitioner at its March 26 uh 20 u 26 meeting. Uh the reason the petitioner is also before the board of adjustment uh

relates particularly to um both the uh second story edition um and an expanded and reconstructed uh front porch uh project being located both within the front yard setback area and as you can see here also within the utility easement. Um when all is said and done, uh they're requesting a front yard setback of 2 1/2 ft in lie of the 25 ft required. And um and they'll also be required to obtain permissions from the rights holders to the 10-ft utility easement. So this right this red dash line represents the utility easement and this blue line represents the front yard um setback or the building line. Um, so as you can see, um, a good portion of the home is already in the front yard setback area, uh, because of when it was built in 1891. Uh the applicant uh noted in their application um that the proposed addition um is intended to improve the home's livability space for their growing family uh remote work and multi-generational use by making the first floor accessible. Um the home's historic character is intended to be preserved and restored where possible. Uh this is looking northeast at the front of the Ben Bomber house. This is looking southwest and this is Strucker Road that we're looking at. This is looking norththeast. Um this is the dwelling and this is Strucker Road.

Just another perspective of that same location. Uh this is a view of the historic dwelling. This is the 1970s edition port of it part of it. Um and then this is the area of both additions um that are the subject of this request in particular. This is looking east at the rear of the dwelling. And this is looking uh south um at the parking area next to the dwelling. This is looking east over the rear yard area of the dwelling. Um and this is uh Clayton Woods Court back behind here. And then this is the rear of the dwelling looking south. Uh the department has received no public comment uh pertaining to this request. Uh but again it has gone before the historic preservation commission and received review there as well. Um at this time uh that concludes my presentation. If you have any other questions of the department uh we're happy to answer them.

Thank you Miss Keith. Any questions? All right. At this time, will the petitioner please come forward, state his or her name, address, relationship to the property, and we'll get you sworn in by the court reporter. Hello, I'm Lauren Wilggas. I'm the property owner at 300 Striker Road. And your address? 300 Strucker 1537 Claywoods Court. Thank you. Raise your right hand. Do you slely swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, help God. Please proceed.

Hi. Um, so, um, as you could kind of see in the pictures, um, and I'm sure you don't get the request every day for a 2.5 foot variance, but we are right up there on the easement and within the building line already. So, I think that that's our hardship is mostly that we are kind of already um in there and that the the road was then widened to kind of push into our property line. Um, our intentions with the improvements are to kind of continue the work that the previous owners um did to continue making it a great family home and as close to maybe more historical accur accuracy as possible. Um, and in doing so, we think um, uh, part of our intention with the second story edition is to unify kind of the masses that have been created with the 1890s and the 1970s forms. They're kind of in a like 50/50 right now and we need an additional space for office and we'd like to move our laundry room outside of a it's currently in a crawl space so it has like a freezing problem so we're trying to move it upstairs. So that's what we intend to use for that second story edition. And uh the additional benefit of that is that it kind of helps marry those two older and newer portions. Um and gives us a kind of a nice way to uh also extend the front porch to then be in parallel with the new addition to kind of give it that more the porch being such an important feature to a folk Victorian home. We thought it would be a great way to add a space for there is a current porch but there's not space to sit or do anything. uh place to put our packages, you know, just um kind of a also also nicer streetscape front on Strreker. Um and the uh it kind of the porch would kind of fill a wedge that's already kind of created by our front entry uh sidewalk and where we currently go into the easement. So, we're really not um encroaching much further at all kind

of between in that sidewalk area. Um, and I called dig right to see exactly where our utilities lie. And um, all of them, all of the main lines are outside of the property line within the sidewalk street utility easement. So there's no um, disruption to the utilities um, required for the porch expansion. Um, we also because we have a stone foundation on the original portion and a poured concrete on the newer 70s edition, we do have a water issue in the basement that we think we will be able to solve by uh grading underneath where that current porch currently is. Um, and uh it's currently a like solid brick um base to the porch floor. We're wanting to do a pier and beam so that we can create a better slope uh away from the house and probably add some some drainage there. Um so a lot of a lot of um problems and hopefully solutions happening in all all one plan. Um, I do have a support letter from our HOA and um two support letter of approval from our um one of our nearest neighbors in the subdivision and also the larger property across the street that is the has the horse farm. Um uh and I I believe I'm getting a third. Um, I've also been working getting those utility uh I have uh approval from sewer and I'm really just trying to talk to the right right people at the rest of the utilities um who when I call them are like what are you talking about? Um but uh I think those are uh on their way. So that's um something that we could provide as a uh as if that was a contingency for approval. Uh we'd be working on getting those approvals from the rights holders. Um, I think that's that's all. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Lee, I actually have a question. Um, how far along are you with permits with St. Louis County or have you submitted? We were doing Wildwood and all this first before going to county and as far as our plans architecturally, we just really have exterior drawings so far. We were kind of making sure we could get approvals on what we could do before we permitted or bid anything if that was Well, that answer the question. Yeah. Yeah, it does. We typically do like six months for permits and that's probably not enough time.

Oh, I see what you're saying. How long would we need to be? Yeah, if we we would like to begin next year. So, I don't know how if how long a possible permit allowance could be extended, but um we'll take that into consideration. Thank you. Any other questions for the petition? Thank you. Thank you. This time, um I don't believe there are any speakers cards, but let's let's ask just in case. Um, anybody online or in person that would like to speak in favor or opposition to this request?

Mr. Chair, we do now have an online attendee. Uh, if if any individuals online would like to speak, please use the raised hand feature. If anyone in the audience would like to speak, I do not have any speakers card. So, all right. I do not see a raised hand. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Miss Keith. Seeing none, um would anybody like the opportunity to hear the oral presentation of the department's report? Seeing none, um any final comments from the department?

Uh yes, Mr. Chair, members of the board, I am here tonight not only as your board of adjustment liaison, but also as the city's historic preservation planner. Uh the city of Wildwood's master plan uh does list a planning policy as preserving historic building sites and archaeological areas through their designation on the city's historic registry of which this property is designated. Um additionally this year the citizen oversight group uh for the 2026 update of the master plan has added several historic preservation goals. So, we are only continuing to tighten up our historic preservation efforts in Wildwood and uh we've come up with a um the city's first historic preservation plan as well. So, given such um the Ben Bomber House is a cherished Wildwood historic landmark uh that we would certainly like to uh see preserved. So, the department is wholeheartedly endorsing this request. Uh the intent of such designation and protection via city ordinance is to encourage the assets protection, restoration and reuse as a means to promote its long-term retention. Uh so we see this project as both benefiting um adding to the historic integrity by fixing some uh previous um perhaps inappropriate updates or alterations uh while also expanding the uh functionality of the home and usefulness of the home for uh the petitioners and their family for generations. Uh so we do believe uh that this property um or this project meets the bill. Um, the historic uh preservation commission did vote 60 to issue a certificate of appropriateness uh for all proposed improvements to the historic asset uh with several members

uh particularly being enthusiastic about its approval. Uh the city's historic consultant also made the following comments in its report. It is wonderful to see an applicant and owner consider such thoughtful and detailed improvements to this historic structure and the result will be of great benefit to the community at large. It is apparent that the project will be overwhelmingly successful and appropriate to the historic resource. Um, as noted by the petitioners, there's a clear hardship and that the current dwelling, uh, given its age and when it was built, uh, prior to any zoning regulations being applied to the property, um, is already significantly, uh, within the front yard setback uh, build uh, setback area, which is dictating any improvements to the dwelling uh, going forward. Um, so we recognize this non-conforming condition and we recognize it as a hardship. Um, we also believe that since the residence has been here in existence for quite some time, uh, there is minimal impact to the surrounding properties and given the petitioner's uh, testimony this evening, it sounds like there is support for this project from them as well. Um, so in conclusion, uh, we are supporting the petitioner's request um, as well as an extension uh, to the timeline required to obtain permits. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Keefe. Any final comments for the board?

Just a quick question to pick up where you ended on the timing component. So, would 18 months be appropriate if they're looking to do this early next year since we're only in April of this year? Um, or do you have another suggestion as to duration of the uh variance? the lockman department prepared its recommendation and identified the time frame. We were conservative with 12 months thinking that the utility companies and the process itself could be resolved by then. Um but again if you feel there's a risk associated with that we would not object to a longer time frame.

Any other comments, questions for the department? Okay, at this time we will close the proceeding for a vote. May I have a motion to approve, a motion to deny, or a motion to approve with conditions? Go ahead, Mr. Lee. I'll make a motion that we approve and extend the time on number five under fact findings to 18 months. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Mr. Morris. Mr. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Mr. Lux,

point of clarification that does not include a contingency for getting the approvals of the uh easement holders correct under the pending motion, right? Yes. If you could amend the motion to include that contingency, that would be appreciated. Mr. Mr. lead to you. I will make a motion to amend the conditions for obtaining the necessary approvals to 18 months. I believe the con the amendment we're looking for is the uh condition of also acquiring permissions from all the right holders of the utility easement public utilities. Yeah.

Okay. modify that to include all entitlements required for the property including all utilities. How are we doing, Mr. Vunish? Mr. Chair, would you ask the second of the original motion if they if he concurs? Yes, Mr. Morris, do you concur with the amendment as stated by Mr. Lee? Do you agree with the the or do you concur to second the the motion amended as Mr. Lee amended it? Okay. So, we do have a second. So, Mr. Lee um amended the motion. Mr. Morris seconded that amended motion. So, Mr. Morris, how do you vote?

Mr. Lux, approve. Mr. Sprunger, approve. Mr. Lee, approve. And I as well approved. Congratulations. Your variance is approved as stated. Thank you. This time we'll go to the next uh request, please. Mr.

Speaker, the fifth item on tonight's agenda is PA13-26 Chad Gibson 16526 Centerpoint Drive, Wildwood, Missouri 6340. Care of Tony Nana, TMK Contracting, 20124 Shiva Court, Wildwood, Missouri 63011. requests an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of expanding an existing deck and partially covering it with roof upon the property located at 16526 Center Point Drive located number 24U 340251 the harbors at Lake Chesterfield pat one lot 447 which were there which would authorize a research This request is contrary to the requirements of the AMXD mixeduse development district ordinance number 17566 which was originally approved by the St. Louis County Council in 1995 and amended since by the city of Wildwood. This particular property is located in Ward 7. And with as with the three previous cases before Miss Keith begins the presentation of slides, the department would like to enter into the record regarding that request the following items. Chapter 400 of the city of Wildwood municipal code 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 provided at part of tonight's hearing. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you Director Munich. Miss Keef.

All right Mr. Chair, members of the board, our next request this evening uh is located uh the subject property is located in the Harbors at Lake Chesterfield subdivision. Um and the subject property has frontage on both Center Point Drive uh to which it is addressed and Wind Jammer Lane. Um it is located within an area uh that St. Lewis County zoned as mixeduse development district um which allows a mixture of dwelling institutional uses, commercial uses and open space um all under a single ordinance. Um so basically creating a self-contained community. Um the original zoning ordinance included almost 500 dwelling units. So the immediately uh immediate surrounding area to this property is um is residential all of uh similar zoning. Uh the single family dwelling uh upon the subject property was built in 1987. It is of a ranch type design with 2 uh,500 square ft of total living area. It has a concrete patio, walkout basement, and existing elevated wood deck associated with it, all upon a 9,600 square ft sized lot. Um, the property consists of well-maintained turf with landscaping surrounding the dwelling. Um, it has a slight slope to it northwest to southeast with 6 ft total uh relief. Uh the request this evening is to construct a new elevated deck with a portion of it covered by a pitched roof uh for uh sun and weather protection.

This would authorize a rear yard setback of 11 ft in lie of 30 ft as required by the zoning district. Uh the deck is 32 feet x 15 ft uh which is 480 square ft in size. Uh there are stairs planned uh at the east end of the deck. Um and it should be noted uh that the 30foot setback um is applied per city of Wildwood uh zoning regulations. Uh but when this ordinance um was adopted by St. Louis County um it pertained to uh the underlining zoning district by St. Louis County which had lesser distance requirements. Um so I will just note that Uh this uh was supplied by the petitioner. This is the existing deck. Um and this is um the aerial view with the proposed deck. Um existing deck and proposed deck. Um you can see the difference on the the dwelling. This is the right elevation. This is the rear elevation of the deck project and this is the south view of the proposed deck. Uh the petitioner provided overhead aerial views which I think give a nice um feeling of the property and the immediate surroundings. Um so it gives a north, south, east and west view. Um there uh this is the front of the dwelling looking southeast from Center Point uh Drive. This is looking southwest towards the neighboring dwelling. Uh this is looking southwest on Center Point.

This is looking northeast at the intersection of Center Point uh Drive and Wind Jammer Lane. And this is Center Point. This is Wind Jammer. Um, this is looking at the subject dwelling looking south. And this is looking down Wind Jammer. Uh, this is the rear of the dwelling looking southwest. And this is looking at the existing deck um at the rear dwelling looking northwest. And again, um, to get a sense of, um, the deck's impact to surrounding dwellings, I really think these overhead aerial views provided by the petitioner are probably your best bet. Uh, that concludes my presentation at this time. Uh, if you have any questions of me, uh, or the department, um, we're happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Keef. Any questions for the department? Uh, yeah. Did did uh did the department receive any correspondence from neighbors that were directly around the subject property either in support or against? The department did not. Uh as noted in the report, there was one resident um who voiced objection, but they were not in the immediate area of the dwelling. Okay. They were just in the notification area. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, will the petitioner please come forward, state his or her name, address, relationship to the property, and then we'll get you sworn in.

Chad Gibson, 16526 Center Point Drive, homeowner. Get you sworn in here. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help you God. Yeah.

Uh, simply shaded. Uh, 39y old house with a very old rickety deck on the back of it. I'm going to do quite a few improvements around the house. I'm a partner in a roofing company, so I wanted to expand the deck. Perfect time to put a little roof over it to have some uh some coverage area as well. Um, the overall the whole 30ft part and all that stuff. My current home, the foundation is 27 feet. The current deck is 15 feet from the setback. And I'm just looking for another 3 4t towards the rear setback to enhance the area that I plan on covering and beyond.

Any questions, Mr. Gibson? He's not. Thank you. Any members in the audience that would like to speak in favor or opposition to this request. Mr. Chair, as noted earlier, we do now have one attendee if they would like to use the raised hand feature at this time. Um, otherwise, I have no speakers cards. And Mr. Chair, I see nobody raised hand.

Thank you. Anybody care to hear a oral presentation of the department's report? Seeing none, um would the department like to make any final comments?

Yes, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. The department planning is supporting this particular variance and recommending that the board consider it favorably as well. The key component here is that the change in juris jurisdiction has created for the most part an un inable situation in that any deck that would be built now on the property would require a variance. And so therefore, based upon that, the department is recommending approval. If there are any questions or comments, Miss Keef and I would be glad to try to answer them at this time. Thank you.

Since the proposed deck's going to have a roof on it, right? Okay. Is there any like water management issues to think about or not really?

I can assure you, Mr. Springer that there isn't a proposal for the most part that goes through the zoning authorization process at the city that doesn't look at storm mortar management at this time. This particular property and the larger development is part of the Cox Creek wershed. The Cox Creek wershed is the most stressed of the nine in the city and we pay particular attention in these areas. When the deck is going through the review process by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning, we'll make sure that we address any potential issues in that regard. So, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions, comments for the department? Thank you.

Thank you, Director. At this time, we will close the proceeding for a vote. Can I have a motion to approve or to deny or approve with conditions? I'll make a motion to approve. Thank you, Mr. Lux. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Sprunger. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lux, approve. Mr. Sprunger, approve. Mr. Lee, approve. And I approve as well. Congratulations. Your variance is approved. Will the department please uh proceed to I believe the final petition. Is that correct?

That's correct, sir. The fifth and final item tonight is BA14-26 Montene Living Trust Wishire. Pardon the interpretation. 31 Hutchinson Road, Baldwin, Missouri 63011. Caravan Anthony George Pools 325 Brightfield Troa Baldwin Missouri 63 011 request an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of constructing an ingground swimming pool with associated concrete decking me upon the property located at 1739 Shiloh Valley Drive located number 22X61005 53 Shiloh Ridge lot 4. I run out of paper here. So, which would there be which would authorize a sideyard setback distance of 15 ft l of 30 the 30 foot standard required for both property lines. The request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.090. 090 and new non- urban resident district regulations of the city of Wildwood zoning ordinance. This particular property is located in Ward 1 and as the previous four cases before Miss Keef begins the presentation of slides, the department would like to enter into the record the following items. 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 city of Wildwood regarding this particular request and all contents contained therein, including the department's report with recommendation. And Mr. Chair, finally,

any testimony or evidence that is offered as part of tonight's hearing. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Director Munich. Keith,

right, Mr. Chair, members of the board, our last request this evening concerns a subject site that is located in the Shiloh Ridge subdivision uh which is just west of the intersection of Raer Ryer and Pond roads. It is uh surrounded by other residential large lots and the subject lot is a 3 acre lot. Uh the subject property is zoned non- urban residence district. It is rectangular in shape and as you can see by this aerial it is biseected by Shallow Valley Drive. Shiloh Valley Drive which is a 50-foot um private asphalt roadway um 50 foot wide maintained by the collective homeowners of the subdivision via a roadway maintenance agreement uh located upon the property. uh to uh the east or to the west um is a one-story ranchstyle home that was built in 1986 uh with 2,459 uh square ft of total living area. Also upon the property is a detached garage, carport, porch, and patio area as well. Uh this property does have a varied topography uh particularly um given that Shiloh Valley Drive is aptly named. It is located within a valley and therefore um there are steep slopes ascending uh to either side of it um including up to including west towards the location of the dwelling. Uh there is 58 ft of total relief on both sides. Um the property is heavily wooded.

Uh the applicants are proposing to install um an inground swimming pool with associated concrete decking uh fencing and landscaping. Um the pool is proposed to be placed uh 10 feet from the sideyard property line and uh which would be here and 15 ft from the rear yard um in lie of 30 ft. Uh there is uh sorry trying to see. Oh according to the applicant the reasoning for uh these variance requests are that is that there is a very steep slope um that descends from the uh garage carport area. Um and they are looking to preserve the structural integrity of the hillside, prevent erosion in that area and minimize the environmental impact of the project. Um, they also, uh, enjoy a natural, um, screening area around the pool, um, which staff can testify to because I've been out to the site. I'm sorry. Here's a closer look of the pool area. And um again you can see uh that it is 11 ft I believe we said 10 ft in the um agenda language to be conservative and 15 ft over here to the west. Uh the applicants have also submitted a landscaping plan for the pool project uh which you can see here and they plan on uh putting substantial landscaping all around it um in the areas affected by the variance request. Uh this is looking southwest towards the dwelling. Uh this is the front of it. Uh this is looking down the driveway of the subject property. Uh looking southeast towards Shiloh Valley. Uh Shiloh Valley

Drive. Um and that's the same view. Uh this is looking north at the detached garage and carport area. Um this is looking northeast from that area. Sorry to uh towards the roadway. This is looking northeast. Um and here you can see the detached garage. So this is the area of the proposed project. This is looking north. This is looking north. And this is looking east in that area uh proposed for the pool. This is looking south um towards the subject dwelling. This is looking southwest and this is looking south. Um I'm not going to conclude my presentation there because I think it's important to note actually Um, and I'll note it in the department's bindings, but if we go back to those aerials. So, this property over here is vacant. And as you can see here on the affected property to the north, um, the residence is on the other side from Shiloh Valley Drive, which I think is especially pertinent in this case. So, this is a really isolated location for the pool project. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Um if you have any questions at the department, we're available to answer them.

Thank you, Miss Ke. Mr. Standard question. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, director. Please. Uh Mr. Sper, I'll hold my request till you Well, just my standard questions in terms of either support or non-support from neighbors. I didn't see anything in the packet. Did any do we have any record of anything like that? Uh we do have one uh email of support uh from a trustee, but uh I believe that they may be a resident of the property. So I don't know. I think that was an RMA thing. I think Yeah, I saw that. Okay. So nothing else that you're aware. Yeah. No. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, Dr. N.

Mr. Chair, when I read the request into the record, I made a mistake because I went from one source of the information to another and left out a part of the description. So, with your permission, could I reread it into the record? Yes, sir. Please do.

14-26 Montine Living Trust, Washire, 31 Hutchinson Road, Baldwin, Missouri 63011. Care of Anthony Jarge Hogan Pools 325 Breitefield Trail Bowman Missouri 63011 requests an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of constructing an ingground swimming pool with associated concrete decking upon the property located at 1739 Shiloh Valley Drive located number 22X610053 Shiloh Ridge lot 4 which would authorize a sideyard setback distance of 10 ft and a rear yard setback effect distance of 15 ft in lie of the 30ft standard required from both property lines. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.090 NU non- urban resident district regulations of the city of Wildwood zoning ordinance. This particular property is located in Ward one. And thank you and my apologies.

Thank you, Director Vich. At this time, will the petitioner please come forward, state his or her name, address, relationship to this property, and then we'll get you sworn in by the court reporter. Anthony George, Hogan Pools, uh 325 Brightfield Trail, Ball, Missouri, 63021. In relationship to this property, I'm the uh contractor, the swimming pool contractor for Mr. Wower. We have sworn in. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help God. She sworn in as well. Sure.

I'm James Weisar, 1739 Shiloh Valley Drive. I'm the current homeowner. You solemnly swear the statements you're about to make be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help guide. Yep.

And gentlemen, the floor is yours. Yes. So, um this is actually the property I grew up on. I was uh fortunate enough uh three years ago to to purchase it and move in with my family. So, um growing up, we had a an above ground pool in this area and it was a beautiful camouflage one that my dad wanted to kind of hide. Um so, the the purpose of this is to kind of provide more of a living space for our three children. We've got uh three toddlers, 5, three, and two. Um, and as much as I love the wooded area, my wife is from Leoo and 141 where everything is big cascading open lawns and I'm trying to kind of create more of a a yard area that we can use. Uh, we recently lived in Chesterfield uh with a pool right across from Marquette High School on a postage stamp lot. So, we're kind of trying to recreate that pool environment in a wooded setting. Um, I have spoken to my neighbors. I spoke to um Andy Wilson who's the homeowner uh that you pointed out is one a little bit further towards the entrance to the subdivision. Um he's a little bit older. I asked him to write a letter. He said he'd prefer not to put anything in writing. He did leave me a voicemail and said I could use it. So if you guys would like me to play the voicemail of his support, I'm more than happy to. U but as as you noted, uh his property does span onto the side where my house is. My property expands on the side where his house is. We've looked into exchanging increments of land, but unfortunately they're not evenly divided. So, it would leave one homeowner with either a sliver on one side or less than three acres, which in our area with septic system was not allowable. So, um you know, he that area is wooded. Um he has no view of the pool. The um area behind us that's vacant is up a hillside and back down before you get to any roads or or properties over there. Um, I'm actually one of the owners of Baxter Gardens of Chesterfield. So, I plan on landscaping it pretty proficiently. I'm excited to have a pool fence that can keep the deer out so I can actually plant some hydrangeas and some flowering stuff and maybe not have them eat them to the ground. So, that's kind of why the pool area is a little bit more expansive than

a just a normal swimming pool. It's just kind of create a nice space in the only flat area that we have. Best of luck with the deer. Gonna need a big fence. Yeah. So yeah, don't plant hostas. Well, anyway, um so you don't you don't have to play you don't have to play the recording. Did he was he in support? Yes. Yes, he was. Okay, just for the record. Yeah, he he his only question was whether or not that included an easement onto his property and I told him no, it's it's just me being able to construct something a little bit closer to the property line than normal. Thank you. Fair enough. And I think it goes without saying I it doesn't appear there's any other area in your lot.

No, not really. Yeah, the whole front hillside's the septic field. So, even if we were to put it down there, I'd might have to move the septic. Yeah, fair enough. Any questions for the petitioner? Thank you, gentlemen. At at this time, um, are there any members in the audience or online that want to speak in favor or opposition to this request? Oh, um, Mr. Chair, again we do have one attendee. If they would like to uh speak at this time, please use the raised hand feature. I do not see a raised hand and I do not have any speakers cards.

Offer the opportunity to hear an oral presentation of the department's report. Seeing none, uh would the department like to make any final comments? Uh yes, Mr. Chair, members of the board, the department is uh supporting this request. Uh clearly it is a challenging site to build upon. Again, it's a very isolated location for the pool. Um clearly uh there's a skill set to make it look very nice in that area. Um and we just we believe there will be minimal impact to the surrounding area and and we'd like to minimize the impact to the the rest of um the site as well. So we are supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Keefe. Any final comments from the board? Seeing none, we will close the proceeding for a vote. May I have a motion to approve? A motion to deny or approve the conditions. I'll make a motion to approve it. Thank you, Mr. Morris. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Lux. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Lux, approve.

Mr. Sprunger, approve. Mr. approve and I approve as well. Congratulations. Your variance is approved. That does conclude the petitions for this evening. I think we have one last agenda um item for tonight and that is to approve the meeting um the minutes of the the board's meeting on March 19th, 2026. Do I have a motion to the meetings or the minutes? Excuse me. I'll make a motion to approve. Do we have a second to approve the minutes? I will second. Thank you. Mr. Morris, how do you vote?

Approve. Mr. Lux, approve. Mr. Sprunger, approve. Mr. Lee, approve. And I as well approve. The minutes from the March meeting um are approved. Any additional new business, old business?

Mr. Chair and members of the board, just an update. Uh, after the March Board of Adjustment meeting, the department met with Brett and Nancy Miller. They're the first item on the minutes you just acted upon and they are going to split the building into two parts and that does not require a variance. So, just to update you on that because we spent a great deal of time talking about that particular item at our last meeting. And before I leave the podium, thank you again for being here tonight. We sure appreciate it. And to our acting city attorney and our court reporter, thank you as well. Yes. Thank you everyone for making this meeting possible. With that,

thank you, Miss Wheeler. Um, we will cons we should consider this meeting a journ. Thank you.