Zoning Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

let's call this meeting to order February 13 20125 Carlos take it away all right on a roll call vote chairman gon present Vice chair ciso here uh acting secretary here and here I I okay chairman you have a full Quorum I will note that uh the uh the board of adjustment uh per state statutes can consist of up to five members uh a total of four members uh emphasizes that you have a quorum uh but it also requires four you know uh the approval of four members to uh provide a variance so in this case um we did check with our alternates and uh they were unable to attend uh I've talked to both uh petitioners for you know since last year uh their projects they've been working on their projects uh in there but I would leave it to them you'd have to get a unanimous vote uh or if you would uh like to hold off or withdraw till I can get five people uh it would be up to you I think we can go through the process and then you can make a decision you know even through the middle uh on that that's okay all right you guys okay with that perfect okay and then I will note chairman uh tonight you have two appeals uh in there uh one is for uh 1,000 luell and lane and then another request from number 11 St Alfred Road uh that one consists there are two requests and there will be two motions that you would consider uh in that application and there I'll get the uh presentation set up in just a second here I apologize I didn't have it

up right you have the two appeals listed on your Das and also up on the projector and those who are online right now there is nobody online out thought of Mr Carswell who is uh at home uh he was also sick today oh and there so chairman again uh for the people here in the audience you have a and and those online you can participate uh the process is that before each appeal begins uh staff will present to the Comm to the board uh first uh then uh answer any questions and comments from the board and then the applicant will present to the board and then answer any comments and questions to the board then there'll be an opportunity for the public uh whether online or in present uh to speak before the board and then the board will close the hearing and they'll have a discussion and hopefully uh conduct a motion um uh uh tonight uh chairman the first public hearing we have and for the first variance request is at uh number 1000 luel and Lane okay do you swear the evidence you shall give to the board and this action shall be the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth so help you got I do then chairman I'll will ask if U acting secretary can read the uh public hearing notice and that is on the dice also just a question do you want me to read the whole thing no I think just the uh this just applicant one that is correct sir no problem okay applicant one petitioners or petitioner is Patrick Finley property address is 1000 lell and Lane property owner is Patrick and Amanda Finley zoning is Sr single family residential district and the appeal of request uh sidey setback variants under chapter 400 uh. 260 yard and side yard and setback requirements the subject property is required um is required a 12

foot sidey yard setback along the Southwest property L line petitioner seeks to construct an addition to the existing home 6 feet from from the southwest property line requesting a 6-foot uh sidey yard setback variance applicant two petitioners is Jen Jennifer beerling and Jeff I ultz good good property address is 11 St Alfred Road property owner is beerling i i i ults ults ults Family Trust sorry about that uh the zoning is Sr single family residential district uh appeal request one side side yard setback variant under chapter 400. 260 yard and setback uh requirements the subject property is required a 24.9 foot side yard setback along the South property line the petitioner seeks to construct a new home 17.06 ft from the south property line requesting a 7.83 side yard setback variance appeal request two rear Set uh rear yard setback variance under chapter 400. 260 yard and setback requirements the subject property is required a minimum of 20 foot rear yard uh setback along the west property line petitioner seeks to construct a new home 12.95 feet from the West property line requesting a 7.05 ft rear yard set back vars all cut me [Laughter] off is that yes good go thank you thank you sir all right chairman invite me go

ahead with the presentation here uh this is the property it's 1100 uh excuse me 1,000 Len Lane it's just south of uh Olive Road um in there just a little bit north of Villa Park uh in there uh there is the existing home uh on the property grounds uh the the lot area the property is owned as our single family residential and it is in compliant with the lot area minimum of the SR District uh it has a width even though it has an awkward shape uh along that teardrop of or KAC uh of 100 fet which is the SR District minimum uh but typically an Sr District property has a 150 foot depth uh and there this lot doesn't uh doesn't give the configuration of the lot it has a pretty deep backyard uh but the actuality uh the North Lot line here is short of 150 ft uh the house is nestled in between the the North and the Southwest property line with a garage along the south of the property they're looking to add a garage addition you can see that here with the shingo area along here uh and along with a u uh sun room and and a overhead patio uh and you can see the garage doors go through uh through that sun room um I've met with a petitioner at his property it's probably been over a year ago last summer uh he kind of discussed uh you know what he the the what he was uh seeking to do we went over various proposals uh in there uh but understood that uh you know in terms of what they were uh trying to do was going to be difficult because of the way the house is situated on the property grounds and given the diagonal um site yard setback here on the Southwest property line um this is the existing house and you can see right here in red is the

oops is the existing footprint of the current uh carport on there uh they're looking to make that a two-car garage uh in here and you could see that um in order to do that they would be encroaching into the required 12 12 yard uh 12T sidey yard setback how do we determine sidey yard setbacks well we actually measure um how wide the lot is from the front yard setback at each point here and here and it is exactly 100 feet and then under the SR District uh sidey yard setbacks would be 12% of that width so when you apply that it would be 12 ft here and 12 ft here and you can see how the house uh garage side was built right at the set backline uh in there they have a little bit more room on the North End uh in there but um you know in discussions with the petitioner was like you would have an issue uh trying to expand the garage if you kept the same face front of the existing home um and there and that's what you what's what happens here uh we will let the petitioner talk about what we told you know talked about there are other opportunities to set that face back or move that or shift that to the rear of the property and either reduce the uh the encroachment or even eliminate it if the garage started right here at this point sorry right here is a uh a streetscape uh picture of the existing property you can see the existing carport that runs here and again if you run the the addition

straight out you would start getting into the side yard setbacks here uh there's a little shedro towards the back end of there and then the house kind of has two a two- plane roof uh on that uh there is a aerial here uh of the property so you can see uh the neighboring property here which also so they are closer to their uh sidey yard setback along the west side as comp as compared to uh along the Southwest property line uh of the subject property here uh are a little bit of details in terms of the the encroachment uh overall you'll see how uh widening the garage 6 ft would would be within the sidey setbacks because the current Footprints just about right here uh in there the point of uh the setback starts to go back because of the configuration of this being a diagonal so it would be actually a point to the house that would be 6 and a half after that it starts going further back uh away you can see uh more from an aial here uh in terms of how that encroachment is along that property line a couple of things just uh to make sure that the board is where uh the property is zoned Sr single family residential it's legally known as lot four the luell and Lane subdivision it's a legal lot of record however it's a legal non-conforming lot given that it doesn't have the the typical 150 foot depth that a ideal lot in the SR District would have um per section 4260 of the alette municipal code the side yard setback is along the southwestern property line the existing house was built in 1957 than compliant with the the district the current District standards the existing house fully complies with the sidey setback along the Southwest property line and the

current owners I believe are the fourth fourth home owners uh and they purchased this uh property in uh 2010 the board has jurisdiction to consider uh an alleged error in the enforcement of the code the interpretation or provisions of the code or if there was a ility uh needing some type of uh variance for placement or when there's a reconstruction of a non-conforming building after been uh impacted by an act of God or five to Grant relief from the strict application of the zoning ordinance to a specific piece of property by issuing an area or use variance as allowed herein the request is for a area variance um in there and that is to uh allow for a six- foot encroachment and instead of having a 12T side yard setback a six foot side yard setback along that Southwest property line uh to justify an area variance the you know it is pent upon the petitioner to you know note to the board that this property is unique has some type of unique condition whether it's width depth shape topography or some other exceptional uh circumstance that's not created by the owner or the applicant that there is a practical difficulty in the enforcement of the code on the property uh that adjacent properties would not be unreasonably affected by the granting of the request that overall the spirit of the code is maintained and then that the uh the consideration of of the verance requests would still observe some of the city's goals and objectives uh in there including the the comprehensive plan and there I'll be glad to answer any specific questions or go back to uh to the slides uh showing the the illustrtion of the addition but a couple of items for the record uh because this is a board proceeding items do need to

be introduced to the board as exhibits as if this was a legal type of proceeding semi quasy judicial uh so you know that that if there was uh a challenge to any action that the board takes tonight these were the items that would be considered uh as part of the review process one is the building permit application that was submitted by the petitioner on November 24th of 2024 the building permit application denial we did that via email it was dated uh also November 2024 I don't have the specific date here um the side Improvement plans and building construction plans that were submitted by Colleen Studio Architects those are dated February 7th 2025 the board of adjustment application dated February 7th 2025 which is part of your packet uh we did uh note put uh post a public hearing notice and we have an affidavit a publication that was published in the St Louis County on Jan January 29th 2025 15 days prior to today's meeting dates you have a copy of the posting and the affidavit and then we also mailed uh that posting to all properties within 300 fet uh of the subject property we did not receive any comments or calls uh you have the staff report on your dice uh dated February 13 2025 including attachments this PowerPoint presentation and of course the city of olette code of ordinances including chapter 400 zoning regulations and the zoning map of the city of olette all right chairman if there's any else I can answer nice job yep questions back up questions uh no I I don't at this time I don't I wow that's all right whoops there we go thank you you said

the garage could be moved back well it was one of the one of the inquiries with the petitioner when we met and I I think they're prepared to to discuss that is uh if there were opportunities or why could not the garage the face of the garage be further back and and get get it out you know if you push it back the you start to increase uh the the the setback that's provided or reduce the uh the the overall request and I think the the petitioner will address that for you but we did ask him yeah could wouldn't it also affect the roof lines again I'll let the petitioner it's a good good point but I think that the petitioner is prepared to talk about that all right You' like to come up and be sworn in please I do you swear that the evidence should to the this the truth the whole truth truth Mr Finley if you can press the button sorry about that sir thank you all right is that better P thousand Welling um uh I see the we have the uh the drawing that the Architects provided I've been working with Architects for some time um we originally had investigated doing set a setback setting the garage back uh we would have to move it back 20 ft in order to have a a standard width two-car garage inside the the setback the uh existing carport 17 ft wide it was narrowed so that it would fit in the on the setback um a key concern that we have is that uh and there's some images I provided as an exhibit um my property is the lowest property on the wellin and my at the back corner of my property is the what

now is considered the southwest branch of the river to it's a drainage ditch uh it was it was a D um named that about a year ago I believe when they were building a house behind us um all of the uh yards on the south uh side of lell and drain across my yard uh there's a significant amount of water there's a picture of my daughter playing in an average sized flow through the yard it runs across my yard and uh into the river um and there's not been any it comes from several directions it comes down LW and it comes down from Woodmore the backyards of Woodmore and the northwest corner Villa Park so it's it's it's comes from a wide range Narrows comes across my yard and into the river um there is a large sycamore tree about 32 ft behind my prop behind my current garage carport um that is providing the root structure that keeps my yard from washing away um it you know it is stabilized I was concerned when I purchased the property that this was going to be a problem but the uh the tree roots and has allowed grass to take hold and the water flows across the grass and then soaks in if we were to move the garage back 20 ft it would be well under the drip line and the root structure and we would lose the tree which would require a significant amount of work to re re re you know redirect the flow to prevent erosion and to prevent flooding of a new garage so my request is simply to provide a a small variance to allow us to keep the garage out of the backyard and away from the flow that's the all the water coming across my yard and your the house doesn't flood no fortunately the way the yard currently

the topography the water stay um it flows nicely between the carport and the shed the tree keeps it from spreading out it kind of keeps it uh localized and uh I do have a sum and I do get a little bit of of drainage but um it's just normal you know from the the foundation you you mentioned something about some additional hardships yes you want to talk about that this is the reason that I'm coming after 15 years to try to get a uh a variance and build a garage this happened um May of 2023 um a car pulled into the C pulled down the street cased all the houses backed up in front of my house and a young man came in and rattled the door handles on my cars to see if he could get in um and I obviously I to I showed this information I have some video I showed it to the out at police department and they told me no crime had occurred because he hadn't actually gained entrance um and the most that they could have gotten in for was trespassing if he hadn't left so obviously that was a little bit disconcerting I mean we keep we tend to keep our cars locked but it would only take one mistake so uh that provided us the impetus to to appeal for our variance um you also mentioned that you know to have the garage um you know within the property it would have to go back 20 ft have you looked at any going back then going back you know like any variation in between sure uh and um Mr trob provided a a rough drawing when we met a year and a half ago uh that set it back about half the width of my house so about 15 feet um but it was only a 21

foot wide garage so I would have with a standard six foot wide car I don't have a foot on each side and a foot between them so to get a 24t garage I would have to move the garage further back in order to still fit within the 12T setb and obviously there's unlimited permutations of that but I using a standard 24 foot garage sure I just I have I have um and they have no concerns I can you know they were willing to provide a letter to the effect is that in the record I did not get it I I there was I didn't get they were having uh he had health problems and in the time I had between learning of this and tonight I I didn't feel it was appropriate to approach him but I spoke with him um before I actually before I engag the AR text I spoke with them to make sure that they weren't going to uh have a have a concern I do have another question if that's okay sure I noticed that the driveway you have an easement yes you know um and I'm sure I guess they're okay with that you know uh I'm the easan actually predates their purchase of the property um and I owe Mr tro a gratitude for that when I went to purchase a house in 2010 um that wasn't of that wasn't on our property record um and he helped us find the the the plate for the neighbors to prove that there was an easement originally from 1957 um they purchased their house in 1999 so um so no they don't have a problem with it but it was there when they purchased our house so that easement was in effect when the house was built yes that's my understanding I the the plate I have from 1957 shows

that easan in place it's just it's such a narrow property front you know I have such a narrow piece of the of the street that there's not a lot of options yeah yeah okay and there were two huge oak trees in the front yard obviously they didn't want to angle the driveway and lose the trees yeah anybody else have anything add all right we are going to close this that's F and Bo and ourselves yeah see it seems to be the nature of the itself seems to be the variance is relatively modest I agree and the one car garage is standard and most people have two cars and need two car garages and appreciate being able to put my car in a garage cl to a carb and it is a modest I was a little concerned about the amounts so I when I was reviewing this earlier I was thinking yeah maybe we can push it back a little bit or you know tweak it but then when I started looking at all the changes to the roof lines that's not an easy task right you know it it's going to be difficult and then I I started noticing kind of where the driveway kind of encroaches you know across there it it almost already seems like that's you know that it's not as bad being that close if you already have an encouragement um I don't know what in my mind that that seems to U kind of help

support how tight that space is how difficult that yard is to deal with some of the the issues that we have um I would love if we could move it back that's what I was hoping but I I agree yeah anything else all right I think we're ready for a vote chairman just to make sure there's anybody in the public that would like to speak I don't believe here but I'll open it up right uh there is one person online and I'm not sure if you are here to speak in regards to this petition I'll give you a couple of seconds here if you are here to speak in regards to this petition you can uh click your uh raise hand that's all right chairman I would assume every it's all okay I'd like to make a motion to go ahead and approve the variance to get any specific word yes I'll get that up for you on the DI in just a second and so it's legible There You Go sir uh the motion is to ran a side yard set back no more than six feet along the Southwest property line for garage Edition as Illustrated the plans date of February 7th 2025 November 5th 205 2024 motion I'll second it thank you sorry about that okay chairman we required to do a roll call vote can you do that car yes sir absolutely all right on the motion as as seconded uh board member Jurel approved board member ciso

approved board member Weber approved chairman garstein approved and the motion passes unanimously 4 to Zer uh in there the next step in the process would be uh I believe that the addition uh hit decides that it's got to go to the planning and community design commission that's the city's Architectural Review Board uh in there we'll work with Mr Finley about getting the paperwork submitted so that would be the next step I know you submitted some stuff but we were trying to make sure we got at least to this point uh in here and uh it might be something um in April would be probably the next dates all right thank you very much good thing you keep your uh car locked I wish hard way I'd learned the hard way too thank you thank you very much we ready all right chairman I'll note that the uh public hearing notice was read into the record uh earlier on by uh board member Cicero uh so I'll go ahead and uh conduct the the presentation and I'll also note that the uh there are two appeal request I read in the yeah sorry show credit to board member Jurel who read the public hearing notice my apologies sir on that um anyway uh but one thing just to note uh unlike the the previous petition uh there are two appeal requests that the board is considering tonight regarding this property you would be taking a motion on each one the board is not uh bound to having to approve both or deny both at the same you could approve one deny one or approve both or or so uh they would be acted on independently uh based on

the information and records that submitted uh this is a subject property here uh no I'm already sworn it but you will when the the the applicants come in appreciate that sir this is the existing property here it's uh address is number 11 St Alfred Road it's in the Heather Hill uh addition subdivision uh which is off of Warson Road so the only way to get into the subdivision is is uh off of Warson Road going through the city of creep core uh it's a multi lot subdivision with uh three streets uh in there and the location of this property is on St Alfred kind in the middle and you can see the configuration here it's kind of a a wedge shape the petitioners are seeking to uh raise the existing home and build a a new single family uh structure in there uh all new homes will have to go through the city's planning and Community design commission they're in charge of the Aesthetics and the architecture and the review the commission can't comment on them uh but we we requested they they provide the the board at least so you can get an idea what the house is going to look like and uh especially in terms of mass and volume uh in there so you have some information here their next steps will be uh submitting these for the for the review process um this is a proposed home uh that that they're looking to place on here and uh when we go and review the the setbacks I've kind of flipped this uh uh this is act kind of the north side and then this top here is kind of the South Side uh but the front yard setback is established by the subdivision and it runs from this point here uh to this point here and it's well over 200 feet uh in in width uh once we have the measured uh front yard uh along the street side uh

the sidey yard setbacks are determined by 12% and each and and that that proportion is allotted on on each side and uh and in this case the sidey yard setback for this property here uh would be uh as as noted I believe it's a little over 24t or or so I may be off with the with the numbers uh but when you when you have a property with a lot of Frontage they only need 100t of Frontage in this case they have twice as much Frontage that would required for a typical lot but since we use a a percentage for a proportion um given that they have a lot of Frontage that means they're going to have bigger sidey yard setbacks than typical lots and all of that would uh when they're only required it is own Sr single family residential the SR District of course requires a front yard as based as a platter record which is shown here in red uh but the sidey yard setback would be this this green line here which would be 12% of the red line width and there you'll notice that on the Northern end of the lot here they don't have a sidey yard even though there's a little bit of property right here the front yard setback is so long and extensive and this lot being kind of a triangular uh shape uh there's no sidey yard that is applied on this in um and then the rear of the property is actually this uh what I'm going to call the West property line up here in here uh this lot is substandard in depth a typical Laden alette should have 150 fet as you can see there's no depth along here and then here it's 145 ft uh so the the the code uh in the SR District requires that a rear yard setback should be provided to um to adjacent properties of 20% of the lot depth or 20 feet no less than 20 feet and that is our our uh kind of like our

uh uh Community value you know the council the way it has adopted the code is that in in all cases no you know every property owner and olette would have at least 20t of rear yard depth and any neighbor adjacent to that could be guaranteed that you know a neighboring structure wouldn't be closer than 20 ft to the to the property line you kind of expect that uh to be consistent all the way through uh the petitioners are seeking to raise the existing house which is currently legal non-conforming I got the survey and you have the the paper work in your packets in there and to build build new um we've been talking with the with the property owners probably again since last summer um and even probably longer than that they've been looking at different options on how to redevelop this property I'll let them speak um when I first met uh with the echol and Mr Burling Mrs Berling and Mr EOL um they were looking at some type of remodel and addition in there and they'll talk about why that was not uh uh uh successful in terms in there to uh to more recently last summer they started talking about just building a new home and I believe believe and they'll talk about it there was an event uh on this property that kind of uh pushed the plans a little bit more forward than what they were before uh and there so you have uh what they're they're seeking to do I'll note also that along here even though that area is not as buildable because of the way the setbacks crunch in there's a series of various utility easements that cross through here uh which we would not allow any structures over we would allow a driveway or some flat work uh but this area along this portion of the property given the easements I think there's MSD lines that run through here and some other uh lines that you could see that run both parallel with the front yard and perpendicular to the front yard um

and there a little bit about the sidey setbacks Again The Wider the lot the greater the sidey setback you have to have to provide that's just the way the the the the rule of that proportion Works however again maintaining the community value it it the the way the council adopted the ordinance is that every lot within olette would have at at least a minimum 5 foot setback uh both for the property owner and also for the adjacent property owner to be secure that you would never have a house within 5T of you the older house that is on here is a lot closer than what this is being proposed so they're actually increasing the degree or reducing the degree of non-conformity uh with this footprint and then it goes parallel with the property line so it doesn't get uh any encroachment the rear yard I'll let them talk about uh the conditions that led to to that rear yard but in this case they are going within the 20 foot minimum uh in there and again we try to maintain both for the property owner to have a reasonable backyard but also for the adjacent owners uh that they can be secured that building structure would be more less than 20 ft uh to their property uh when you look at the Aerials you'll see the configurations of these two lots and you'll get an idea of where their existing homes are located and then you can decide in terms of what type of impact that they would have and I do believe uh and it's part of your packet uh you have two letters from those adjacent owners uh uh towards the end of the packet uh that have been submitted and they'll reference those when they come up this is a u street view from Google you can see the existing house it does have a two-car garage that garage faces North it will have this the new home would have the same configuration pretty much the same length uh but it's the the depth that's going to be a little bit different uh this is a uh Google aerial view looking

at it from uh uh from the uh from that codac this is the property right here and you can see the two neighboring lots that are behind them where the houses are are further towards the west and the way their property works there's a big bacon area kind of wedge right here uh because of the CLD and you can see an MSD line so those easements that run through this property also run along here which kind of set these two homes a little kind of guide the positioning of those two homes because the way the uh the utility is laid out these are the footprints just a little bit closer uh I think Mr carlswell putting this together kind of shows in red the rear yard setback encroachment uh in there even though there are two we have to go with the one that's the greatest uh in there and then in this case this is a 7 foot encroachment back here they would have a 4 foot encroachment into the rear yard and again I'll stress it's one of those that it's at that point as you get further along that elevation that degree of encroachment starts to to be reduced and there on the sidey yard you'll see that here and this uh the the lavender color um it is further away than what the existing houses but you can see how it's set and they provide uh still 18 ft a little bit over of 18t of sidey yard setback uh in there where the code is looking for 24.9 uh given how wide that uh this lot is a couple of things are findings uh you know for the record the property is zoned Sr single family residential it's legally known as lot 31 of the Heather Hill first edition subdivision it is a legal lot of record however it is a

legal non-conforming lot uh with the city's uh lot code minimums uh per section uh 4260 of the alette municipal code the sidey setback is along the South property line and the rear yard setback is along the west property line the existing home was built in 1952 the existing home is also legal non-conforming as it encroaches 13 feet into the 24.9 side yard setback and the current owners I believe are the six owners um who purchased the home in 2014 there are various types of variances that this board has jurisdiction over one is when there is an error and how the code is being enforced two is when we're interpreting the provisions of the C code three is for Public Utilities four is for reconstruction and five is to Grant relief from a area of variance and that's what you're considering tonight in an area variants the board should be shown by by the applicants that there's something unique about the property uh whether it's width depth shape topography or some other extra exceptional circumstances that's not created by the owner or the applicant that there's a practical difficulty as opposed to one of mere inconvenience uh where adjacent properties would not be unreasonably affected where the variance as proposed would still be within the spirit of the code and that they would observe all of the other criteria like uh the the underlying zoning District still being used for residential uh and City's comprehensive plan and chairman if I may enter a couple of items just for the record again this is a a proceeding so these items would be part of what has been

submitted one is the building permit application dated January 7th of this year the building permit application denial uh which was sent via email dated January 7th of this year the board of adjustment application dated January 16th of this year the side Improvement plans uh prepared by lawren strutman architects dated January 16th 2025 the building construction plans by THD Design Group dated January 16 2025 the public hearing notice the affidavit a publication that we did publish this in the St Louis count in on January 29th 2025 that's 15 days prior to this meeting uh the posting and the list of addresses of properties within 300 ft that were uh forwarded a copy of the public hearing notice uh the staff report before you dated today February 13th 2025 including its attachments the PowerPoint presentation and the City of alette code of ordinances including chapter 400 zoning regulations and the zoning map of the city of all that chairman that's all I have I'd be glad to answer any specific questions thank you questions I have a question Carlos if the width was you know uh only uh to the center line of that uh uh easement that drain adment I believe what what would the side yard setback be it would depend I I can't scale uh off of here but I would assume that that width okay you do okay right okay so I you know it's definitely you can see here that this length here is 52 and there's a point somewhere that it changes so you're looking at about uh maybe 140 ft uh which would have reduced that to 140 so yeah about 18

feet it took a while yeah so uh nice in there and again you can see that they're M maintaining an eight 18.8 little closer here that's that's a one story home corre that's being proposed the existing and and that being proposed is is a one story stru any other questions for Carlos I me so if this house fell down and you want to build put the exact same home on that lot right where it is now you would still need variances you'd have to come to the board to build it within that existing footprint thank you any other questions and the and the new house has less of an approachment it would on the uh on the south uh side yeah on the side property line however in the rear uh it would be a little bit it would be you know you could see where those encroachments are uh I'll pull up their site plan here they got a good uh survey of the existing conditions oh that's better so you could see here that you know we in the side setback they're looking to um encroach you know the uh these amounts here that that house goes into roughly 13.3 feet into that sidey setback some of these lots are very weirdly shaped I have to note at first I thought this was probably one of my most unique shaped properties in all of that than the when I saw the other side you know they're going to have a similar

situation on how they just when they did the subdivision how they wedged those right uh two Lots at the end and given the curvature of that street and the backup of the subdivision I mean you really have you know a property line that's just 18 feet deep yeah wow but a lot of Frontage yeah yeah anything else for Carlos you guys want to come on up please state your name I swear well yes is this still on yes yeah it's on I swear that the evidence that you shall give I do I do okay M berlene and M mman if you could both uh just int State your names and addresses for the record uh Jennifer beerling 15 St Alfred is my home address and the property is next door lawren strutman 16676 old Chesterfield Road Chesterfield Missouri 63017 the architect she is the architect so if it's okay I um I did a little writing because I'm afraid that I was gonna forget things and so bear with me uh if it's okay that I uh read that to you um first I want to thank you all for your service to alliv it and appreciate uh you're volunteering to serve on this board U my Jeff would want to be here tonight um and he threatened to video in um but he is out of town for a work event um and decided that may be more intimidating for me if he was on video uh so he uh unfortunately was enabled to join tonight um I will try not to repeat myself um from the letter that was included in your packet but I do think there are food notable items that I wanted to call out um verbally to you today um the lot at St Al alone and St Alfred as we've talked about is extremely unique non-conforming um and

it is next door to the home that we live in at 15 St Alfred um we have held on to the home uh since its initial purchase with the intention for this property to enable the independent supported living of our adult daughter who is disabled um in January of 2023 there was a fire caused by a tree falling on an overhead power line and there was significant damage to the property the house has been uninhabitable since this time over the course of the last two years we have consulted with four different Architects initially working nearly a year on a design for a renov that would both repair the fire damage and reconfigure the home for accessibility this route ended up being cost prohibited as it rivaled the cost of new construction but with a lot more unknowns and additionally each design we attempted with multiple Architects also would have required a rear setback variance so we pivoted our plans to new construction and have been working with our current architect Lawrence strutman for more than a year on revisions attempting to design a home that meets the accessibility needs of our daughter and remains within the lat setback requirements despite two years of effort we have been unable to design a home which provides the necessary accessibility within the standard setback constraints Lauren has helped to create a proposed design that minimizes the intrusions into the setac and the amount of the variants being requested while also being a fully accessible home and this is the plan that you have before you today as you'll see in the submission the lot has a number of challenge we've talked about many of them the frontage being extremely long um resulting in the calculated side yard to back of 25 ft um the frontage includes the North of the property which is unusable to the due to both narrowness and the division from the rest of the property by the storm water sewer and there's actually an inlet on the property as well so there's also in addition to the storm Inlet that you showed that Carlos showed there's an additional Inlet on our property as well um if you remove this unusable portion of the frontage the new calculated side setback would be about 17 and 1 12 feet which is very close to the setback our plant proposes the current home which we

talked about the current home on the property encroaches 13.3 ft and the new home we propose will require only a 7.8 feet encroachment less than the current dwelling setback at the rear of the lot a rear variance is requested due to the 20-ft minimum setback which is taking priority over the calculated minimum based on lot depth because of the taper of the lot the buildable depth on the garage side of the house is quite narrow because the 40 foot required in the front and the 20% or 20 foot required in the rear if we plan a detached garage rather than attached garage the 10-ft minimum setback would be allowed that's something we talked about with Carlos however detached garage does not allow for a covered entry for an accessible van that our daughter will require in case of inclement weather and our proposed setback variance of 13 ft from the back corner is greater than the setback that it would be if the garage were detached which is 10 feet we've discussed our plan with both neighbors adjacent to the lot in the rear who are both on Cherry Lane both neighbors are supportive of our plan and have provided written statements to support our requested variances when you have those in your packet to the South we are the side adjacent owner homeowners at 15 St Alfred and do plan to remain um in that property um as we mentioned the home is really intended for our daughter all right I'm gonna try to get this part without tearing finally I would like to talk a minute about why this house and why this design is really needed um as I mentioned multiple times the primary resident of the home will be our adult daughter who has significant physical and intellectual disabilities we want to allow her a safe and accessible home to thrive as a member of the alet community said I wasn't going to do that um accessible housing is insignificant shortage not just in alette but in the entire St Louis area during the 2-year period working through this design we've also toured countless houses for sale in the area and we did not find one that would have been reasonably accessible without significant renovation accessibility requires larger bathrooms to allows for a wheelchair or a walker wider hallways and doorways an accessible home the square footage needs

to be increased not for luxury but for function an attached oversized garage is also planned which will support the use of a wheelchair accessible van an enclosed area to move from the home to the van while covered from the weather and also still allow a place for a second car to park we believe that granting this variance is consistent with the spirit of the zoning regulations and can be granted without detriment to the public good our neighbors are supportive in addition the construction of a fully accessible home allows for diversity and housing in the Ala Community which is a core tenant of the Ala comprehensive plan and we thank you for your consideration and I think Lauren did have a couple of items she wanted to review from an architecture yeah I'm the architect Lauren strutman I'm happy to answer any questions and I think Jen and Carlos have done a a wonderful job of presenting this case and I just have one very small thing to add and it's on a hand out you have this I have one and then we did have a in the slide you can see open top didn't realize Carlos could just pull it up on the screen so I made a copy here but if you look at my little 8 and a half by 11 uh the pink line is St Alfred Road and uh the point I want to make is that this sidey guard variance is certainly not out of keeping with the pattern of the neighborhood if you look at the Lots in the neighborhood along the pink line you can see there's a lot of actually very narrow Lots in St Alfred Road up at the beginning and even down at the end and uh there's really only three wider lots and that's number 18 number 11 and number nine are the three wider Lots on the street and if you look carefully you can see the yellow line that's the property line and you can see all of the homes on The Wider lot are very close to their sidey

yard setback so I don't see the wide sidey yard setbacks that would make this design be uh out of keeping with the rest of the neighborhood there's basically uh narrower sidey guard setbacks because of narrower Lots in this neighborhood and that's all I have to add guys have any questions I not is there anybody online that no sir Ando letters for the record were positive I here neighbors yeah and they're part of the packet in there each each one of you have I saw I will I will also say both were actually very happy that the lot was or that the home was going to remain a one-story home I I think that was I'm sorry both res both of our neighbors were actually very happy to learn that it was going to remain a one-story home versus a two story all right thank you we will close this portion and open up for discussion amongst ourselves I think there's there's several unique uh situations here the lot itself and obviously the U uh Specialties person uh as well uh I don't see anything they could do differently that would make no especially even just the fact that if you're going to build the exact same

house you would have to come for a variance as well yeah and to me I don't see the side effect being any issue once while lines up in the character and kind of how everything is um and I understand rear yard just because of the extra space that you need with hallways accessibility things like that and honestly it does seem to be if they can't build this house they're gonna have they they can't have their daughter move in I mean which is like that confiscation of of property right and look at that lot I mean it's yeah it's crazy okay chairman if I can at least for the record and or I am in sensitive to to to the situation discussion regarding uh the user for the property and empathetic on that and that's why we've had a lot of discussions in there but of course the you know the the justification for a variance is based on the lot itself it's not about the individual users though it's hard to separate that but I do want to note you know given uh you know to to stress one component that the the petitioner did did say and I forgot about that because we did you know you know we started last year but there there was other variations even prior uh to that and there there was a discussion that you know if they detach that garage that 20 foot back that's required for the house gets reduced to 10 ft and it just because of that Detachment they could have put the garage closer they chose in their design of course to keep it all together for

that purposes especially for for the user uh of the property and it makes more sense than again the neighbor would have had a you know a garage wall 10 ft from the property line uh now they're going to have you know a point of a garage uh 13 feet from the property line uh in there so there was some consideration uh in that aspect I forgot about the that that discussion in addition to that the the point closest uh to that is not like a a big activity window or something that now you're going to oversee your neighbors it's it's a garage and I believe the walls almost now they got to go through the review process and all that but mostly solid so it's not even though it's closer to the neighbor's property it's not overseeing the neighbor's property uh as you would if that was the living room or something like that so just to note those items thank you and right well and understand that needing handicapped accessibility isn't a hardship so yeah but but I think I mean as humans it warrants the understanding and the consideration uh in there but distress that the board again uh if this was detached you wouldn't be here right and there I think they're doing a better benefit by submitting a better design absolutely aesthetically to that it's part of the house so how do we make a motion all right time can we make one motion or we have make two you're going to make a motion on each one you'll first consider the sidey guard setback and then you'll consider this the so be two separate votes two separate votes yes sir okay I'd like to make motion not yourself uh I'll make a motion to Grant a sidey setback variance of no more than 7.83 ft along the South property line for a new

single family home as Illustrated in the plans dated January 17 2025 second second Carlos who you you should identify your second miss it was me all right thank you it's for I can only put one person down okay in the end all right there's on the motion to Grant the sidey guard setback variance is submitted uh board member Weber approved board member cisel approved board member jel approved and chairman gersing approved the motion to Grant the sidey setback uh passes unanimously so therefore the variance is granted chairman I'd like to make another motion want you keep it going make a motion to Grant rear yard setback variance of no more than 7.05 ft along the west property line for a new single family home as Illustrated in the plans stated January 7 January 7th 2025 I'll yield my second I second the motion it has been seconded Carlos chairman on the motion to Grant the rear yard set pack as submitted uh board member Weber approved board member Cicero approved board member drel approved Sherman gin approved the motion passes 4 to zero uh uh so the uh the variances have been granted for the petition as submitted the next step or phase in this would be uh that they may now continue going through the city's planning and Community design commission for site plan Community design and concept store man management review again we knew that they were going to be requesting the setbacks uh so the information submitted was to be able to address this address that to get this to the board uh I think there are some revisions that are be be coming in and then there'll be be reviewed by an outside consultant so we're probably looking at that April meeting again U uh

before those go uh continue to the process okay congrats thank you ladies yes thank you Mar have anything else that is it we didn't have an opportunity to put uh some minutes from our last meeting uh but we'll get those prepared for our next meeting uh we also we the city does have a new city uh attorney and uh we talked about that we would have some type of presentation from her and invite all the board members in there but we'll probably do that probably sometime in August or September uh in that process unless we have now it is possible we may have another board meeting or some application nothing's been submitted that I'm aware of uh in there but anticipate some sometime in September we'll have a session with the city attorney she can go over the process procedures rules Rob Rules of Order and any questions you guys may have that's all I have J I was I was just wondering whether you give us an update on the various uh construction projects absolutely if you have a second uh in there so we'll go ahead and call I'll go ahead and uh note some of these uh in here so I'll start up by I70 and the uh the the the ucity development they are putting a a Target that's what's being constructed on the North Side by Costco uh and then there's a multi-tenant building that is right by the uh uh by the Chick-fil-A in there I'm not sure who the in tenant is it's either going to be Smoothie King or Starbucks I have not been able to figure that one out thought it was deerberg that was moving I'm gonna I'll get that let me cross the street yeah so if I cross the street to the South Side yes deerberg is going to be building towards the back which would have been like behind Bob Seafood if you if you were looking at that space so they're going to be behind the the first watch so it'll be further towards the back in the front uh matter of fact it was

interesting they they brought uh the modular building there's a coffee shop I can't appear seven or Pier 57 it's a drive-thru coffee uh facility that's being built and then there's talk about two other Outlaws that would be in front of deerberg uh in there so that seems to be going pretty smooth a lot of you know a lot of things that it would be difficult to try to locate them here in OLED given our our lock conditions and you know I don't think that we would want to move remove move Residential Properties for for the purposes of the drive-thru so uh but it's a very good convenience for our residents uh to have the Costco the deerberg the Target and all that on that side yes on our end yes uh Audi opened um February 6 uh in there I think Don you said you there you were there at 1:30 a.m. or is that [Laughter] you there was a one person that was that showed up at 1:30 in the morning so it was kind of exciting it's a great facility it's really nice it's very open and area if you get an opportunity to go in uh but the the Audi's is done um next to the Audi's between Audi's and I70 uh We've issued permits for a like a 12,000 foot retail building that will have uh about four or five tenants two of those tenants have been identified one is called Paris spaghet and it's kind of like a Panera uh concept and then the other is the brass tap um kind of looks like a like a Buffalo Wild Wings inside so it's it seems like a a sporty uh beer type of bar u in there and I think it'll be a great component coming in if you cross the street from there uh you'll see behind the Chevys and the CVS uh the Irvington Place apartment's under construction uh they got two levels already framed but

that will be a five-story 207 unit uh apartment complex uh in there uh in the industrial park there's a lot of activity going on one that I will note will be uh uh with Emerson uh electronics relocating out of the Ferguson bouri um and moving their headquarters the the Clayton they had another subsidiary that is moving out of the Ferguson area and into alette uh where uh we lost one of our our our our biggest uh businesses which was uh Enterprise Fleet Management but Emerson's a Fisher Rosemont subsidiary is bringing 250 employees in into the building that was just vacated by by Enterprise so we're excited about that I have a little announcement that you all know that the APA is leaving pulling out of the County shelter correct three years early um they exit February 21st and um trying to get as many dogs out ERS adoptions whatever so as many adoptable dogs out yeah they're um handing it back over to the county yeah that's a shame had to hear that yeah so their contract was for five years and after two years they decided they wanted to move on it's going to be handed back over to the county so you may have read in the paper there's just been a huge uproar that the county wanted to stop the volunteer program which is unheard of for such a large does she all the time so um just this morning in the paper they mentioned vaguely but that they were going to reinstate the volunteer program so there's some relief there but there's still no details so just spread the word yeah um I don't know how many temporary Holdings how many temporary Holdings

they'll have in the Brent with facility but there are like over 200 well over 200 dogs they are not all adoptable but there are lots there's so many rooms in that building off the war and our fire department would host that's so amazing I love that they do that yeah they host a dog for the day that's aw it's really helped getting get the dog adopted and a Facebook page and everything it's it's been helpful two last things just on on the development uh question of course Party City will be closing I think by the end of this month uh and there we've reached out to the uh shopping center owners to see what what type of Interest would be out there for that type of space it's a good siiz space but it's not a big space but it's not a small space and to subdivide it it get it gets expensive because you got to dig up the the the flooring and bring in new new Plumbing because each space has to have its own bathrooms or or so so we're looking around to see I think it's about 15,000 square feet plus or minus uh and there the other thing is a great heart Brewery has opened up on the it's 9 415 Olive uh yes uh actually no it opens tomorrow uh tomorrow at 4:00 p.m great facility I they really did a really nice job with the interior so pretty yes so good it did such a nice job with that so is there any further building on that 170 price yes they also are to have a an office building that would be located or around where the old Office Max used to be and then a hotel uh further towards the back uh in there yeah and we're trying to work with them at least to expedite the hotel process uh because there is a name chain and owner for that uh but the office Market you know you'll hear different things but it's not it's

not as healthy as it was back then there's no shortage of coffee places between the east side of 170 and the West uh once the Paris bagette moves it and then the drivethru you said and maybe that'll be in the UC City side yeah goodness the competition seem to be F all right anything else chairman nice thanks for the update thank yeah that's cor oh absolutely thank you missley absolutely we'll talk to you go ahead we need to officially adjourn yes all right meeting is adjourned thought I did one