Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Ready. 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 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 handstaff your speaker 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 Wildwoods Board of Adjustment to order. The board members present today are Bob Morris, board member, Anthony Reiner, al alternate member, Arie Sprunger, vice chair, Michael Lee, board member, and myself, Jared Frank, chair. The department of planning staff present is Joe Vunich, director of planning, and Robin Keefe, planner. City attorney Sarah Sarah Rutherford, and court reporter Becca Becca Tuggle are also present on Zoom. First, I offer into the record of affidavit the publication pertaining to today's meeting June 19th, 2025, and take official notice of the zoning ordinance of the city of Wildwood, including chapter 400, article 2, authorizing establishing the board of adjustments powers and duties. Now, let me explain the hearing procedure. Please be aware the information I am about to describe is also provided on the board of adjustment public hearing procedure handout, which was available online prior and up to tonight's meeting. This hearing is informal in its nature. However, this meeting's proceedings will be recorded by a reporter for future transcription if needed. The petitions will be called in the order listed on the agenda. As the petition is called, I will ask a Department of Planning staff member to read each request into the record. Thereafter, the Department of Planning will have opening remarks and a brief slide presentation. Then the

petitioner or his or her representative will be asked to state their name and address, be sworn in by the court reporter, 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 will be limited to 15 minutes total inclusive of any questions posed by the board unless such time is extended by the chair. Board members may ask questions to clarify the facts of the petitioner's presentation. When the board is satisfied with the material presented by the petitioner, the chair will then ask if there is anyone present or online who would like to speak in favor or opposition to the requested variance. Each speaker will be asked to provide their name and address, be sworn in, and then provide 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 plans 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 variance is approved, the petitioner has six 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 of 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? Are there any participants online who would like to ask a question? Mr. Chair, I see nobody raised yet. Hearing no questions at this time, the meeting will proceed. Will the department please read the first request into the record which will be followed by a brief slide presentation if desired by board members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mr. Chair, members of the board, the first item tonight is BA7-25 Marjgery Rug 13 Deerfield Bridge Road, Wildwood, Missouri 630005. Care of Rhonda Loia 205 Chesterfield and Industrial Boulevard, Chesterfield, Missouri 630005. requests an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of constructing a closet laundry room addition to the front of an existing single family dwelling upon the property being located at 13 Deerfield Ridge Road locator number 20X 330036 Deerfield subdivision lot 13 which would thereby authorize a front yard setback distance of 29 ft in lie of 50 ft. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.090 non-NU non- urban resident district regulations. This item was originally scheduled for the April 17, 2025 meeting, but was postponed by the petitioner to the May 15, 2025 meeting and then again to the June 19th, 2025 meeting. This particular property is located in Ward 1. Again, before Miss Keefe begins the slide presentation, 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 created 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 provided at tonight's hearing on this particular matter, including but not limited to maps, plats, letters, or other materials. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Uh their request this evening involves the construction of a closet laundry addition to the front of an existing single family dwelling which requires a front yard setback distance of 29 ft in lie of 50 ft. The subject property is located in a far northern portion of Wildwood just to the east of Babler State Park. The subject lot is 3.84 acres in size and it's located within the Deerfield subdivision which consists of 13 lots total. The property is zoned non- urban residence district uh which requires a 50-foot front yard setback from any public rideway or roadway easement um and also a 30-foot sideyard setback. Uh the property is served by Deerfield Ridge Road which is a paved private roadway that's maintained by the properties of the same subdivision. It connects to Babbler Park Drive or

Highway BA to the south. And again, uh this property is currently occupied by a single family dwelling that was built in 1978. Uh the lot does have an irregular shape to it as you can see. Um, it also has a varied topography uh with the highest elevations on the southeastern and southern portions of the property and then sloping steeply downward to the northwestern corner. Overall, the relief is over uh 50 ft. Uh the new closet laundry edition is where this arrow is pointing. Uh so it is going to be affixed to the front of the existing dwelling uh which does require again that 29 ft set back uh from the roadway easement which is depicted by this red line here um in lie of 50 ft. Uh the petitioner notes there is mechanical equipment uh right behind this addition to the side of the dwelling um that would uh create a hardship and and having to move and also require more disturbance in that area if the addition were considered there. Um it is noted um and you can probably see in this site plan uh that the roadway doesn't exactly align well with the roadway easement as platted. Uh these are elevations of the home with the new addition provided by the petitioner. So here we see the addition and there Um, additionally, since the department's last report on the matter, uh, the

petitioner has also supplied a 3D rendering. Um, so you can, uh, have, um, that that sense as well of what it would look like. Uh, additionally, the department has received uh, a tree uh, impact uh, study by the petitioner. It is noted that there are two large trees that will be impacted by the addition um including a very healthy Norway spruce and then an older uh white pine. Uh both would need to be removed. Uh this is a picture of the uh dwelling uh looking northwest um at the front of it. This is looking south at Deerfield Ridge Road. This is looking northeast at Deerfield Ridge Road and we're standing in front of the residence. And then here we're up more towards that barn. So you can see the barn here. Um, so here we're standing at the barn uh looking uh northeast at the dwelling uh which is uh right here and then this is Deerfield Ridge Road. So you can see that curve. Uh this is looking northwest at the dwelling. Um so here you can see some of the landscaping along the road. This will be unaffected by the project. Uh this is again that the area of the addition.

Um this is the area to the side of the dwelling where the mechanical equipment is located. This is looking north. This is standing in that same location looking northeast towards the barn which is owned by the petitioner. This is looking southwest at the pool. Uh this is looking northwest. Uh we're standing in the inner courtyard area of the driveway where the garages are located and this is a path that connects to Babler State Park. Uh the HOA uh did conduct a poll of the entire neighborhood uh in regards to this project and over 90% approved of it. Uh, and that concludes my presentation at this time. If you have any questions, Director Vunich and I are available to answer them. Thank you. Any initial questions? Nope. All right. Thank you, Miss Ke. At this time, will the petitioner please come forward, state his or her name, address, relation to the property, and then be sworn in by the court reporter. Hi, Jeff Atkins, Voss Incorporated, uh, 10849 Indian Head Industrial Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri, 63132. Um, I'm here on behalf of Marjgery, the owner, who's present. Um, Rhonda, who's the architect applicant. Just a moment, we'll get you sworn in. Oh, sorry.

Yes. See, go ahead. Okay. So, here I'm I'm I'm here on behalf of Marjorie, the owner, who's here. Uh Rhonda, who's the architect, and petitioner, uh she's not available, and Alisa Sherholds, who's the builder who is also not available to be here. So, um, uh, I think that Robin explained everything that we're asking for. I think one of the things that, uh, we kind of wanted to point out, I wanted to point out was that the topography of this ground is there's quite a bit of topography. And this house is really built in the only spot it could be built. And so any addition to this property is going to be an issue. It doesn't lend itself to um, uh, to a lot of options. So, um, like she had indicated, the the mechanical and the utilities that come in in that one location, uh, are a concern. Additionally, the trees that will be removed will need talking about replacing those in kind. So, um, um, the the the lots an unusual shape lot. Um, and it was platted when it was platted. I don't really know why it was platted the way it was platted, but the the big portion of the roadway easement runs through the property. And so if you measure from uh the new addition to the actual pavement itself, it is 50 ft to the pavement itself. Do you have any questions? Any questions? Think you covered it well. Thank you. At this time, um, board members don't have any questions. We'll open the floor to, uh, to any speakers in the audience or online who want to speak in favor or opposition to this request. As a reminder, each speaker has five minutes to present, inclusive of the board's

questions, unless the chair allows additional time. Mr. Chair, I do have one speaker card from Glenn Hoffmeister. Glenn Hoffmeisterfield Ridge Roadland, Missouri. Yes, I do. Mr. Officer. Okay. We're been there neighbors. We're at number three, which is the adjoining property to 13 with the road in between. My property line actually goes to a point about uh 12 ft from the addition, but the houses are separated by 100 yards and uh the road crosses each way. and I think our driveway is in their property, but we've been there and I appreciate your job because I was on the board of adjustment for the first five years of the city. So, we think that it will be an improvement to an already outstanding house in that it would balance the garage which is already forward from the main house. And if the uh generator and the air conditioner remains on that side, it would be hidden from the road as well. No one can see that house, the front of it, except us from our property. No one else in the subdivision has visual uh

line of sight to the property. So, we have no objection. and we encourage her to do that and she has other plans to enhance the rest of the property after she gets to occupy. That's all. Any questions? Question. Thank you. Any additional speakers for this varian request? Two uh individuals online. If those individuals would like to speak at this time, please use the raise hand feature. I see no raised hands on one. No more speaker. Thank you. Thank you. Would anybody like to hear the oral presentation of the department's report? Any final comments uh from the department of planning? Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the board, uh you may have read a previous report from this department that was very different than our recommendation tonight. However, uh in our defense, several items have since been provided to it that have aided in us uh being able to reconsider this request, including a 3D rendering, um a tree impact study, a storm water uh uh impact mitigation plan, um and and also we've uh heard from the HOA and they took their vote. So, we have that information as well. Um ultimately in reviewing the 3D rendering uh many of this department's uh concerns regarding the design of the home were alleviated and looking at it. Um additionally uh it's always uh comforting to know in a private subdivision where um you know pretty

much only those owners of those homes are going in and out uh 90% over 90% approve of the project. Um so uh we are now in support. Uh we are recommending that this approval, if the board should grant it, uh be contingent upon approval of a landscape plan or um as they were saying, tree replacement or tree re relocation plan. Um but uh that concludes this department's comments. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Keith. Any uh final comments from the board? Seeing none, we will close this proceeding for a vote. Can I have a motion to approve to deny or approve with conditions? Do we have a second for that motion? Mr. Sprunger, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Riner, Mr. Lee, approve. And I approve as well. Congratulations. The variance is approved uh with the condition as stated. So that we Thank you. We'll move right into the second request, please. Mr. Chair, the second item on tonight's agenda is BA10-25 David Flag, 244 Timber Meadow Drive, excuse me, Wildwood, Missouri 63011, Care of Emily Wayhart, St. Louis Hardscape Solutions, 2763

West Sage Street, Pacific, Missouri 63069. requests an exception to the minimum yard requirements general for the purpose of constructing a new concrete block, excuse me, modular block retaining wall, which will have a maximum height of 8 ft and be 167 ft in length and will include 159 linear feet of associated black aluminum fencing to be located along the back portions of both sides of the lot and its rear property line of Budding Striker Road. upon the property being located at 244 Timber Meadow Drive, locator number 22U30115, Timber Ridge Estates, Plat 1, lot 2, which would thereby authorize a front yard setback distance of zero feet in lie of the required 20 ft. This lot has two frontages on Timber Memo Timber Meadow Drive and Streker Road thereby having two front yards though the retaining wall will be at the rear of the dwelling along Streker Road and a sideyard setback distances of zero feet in lie of the required 8 ft. This request is contrary to the requirements of chapter 415.140R3 10,000qt resident district regulations and planned environment unit PEU amended ordinance 14735 approved by St. Louis County Council in 1989. This item was continued by the board at the request of the department of planning. The postponement was set at the May 15, 2025 meeting and this particular property is located on Ward 4. Mr. Chair, before Miss Keefe begins the presentation of our slides, the department would like to introduce into the record the following item. 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 matter and all contents contained therein, including the department's report with recommendation. And then finally, any testimony provided as part of tonight's hearing, including but not limited to maps, plats, letters, or other materials. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Venish. Miss Keefe, Mr. Chair, members of the board, uh some of you have seen this before. However, uh there are a few newcomers as well. So, I'm going to give us thorough presentation. Uh in this case, uh the petitioner is uh seeking to construct a new concrete block retaining wall in the rear yard of the property as we think of it. Um but it's considered under our zoning regulations as the front yard in terms of setback requirements. Um so we're talking about the rear portion located along Strucker Road in this case. Uh the subject lot is in the far eastern portion of Wildwood. It is part of the Timber Ridge Estate subdivision and it's situated between two roadways uh Timber Meadow Drive which is in the front of the dwelling and Strucker Road which is in the rear. Both are citymained roadways with Strucker being uh an arterial roadway. The property does have a trapezoid shape to it. It was occupied by a single family dwelling. It is occupied by a single family dwelling built in 1985.

It is zoned R3 10,000 ft² residence district and it is part of a planned environment uh environmental unit amended ordinance 14,735 approved by the St. St. Louis County Council in 1989. Uh together uh these um provide for the setbacks um applied to the property uh which includes a 20ft front yard setback uh which again in this case is applied to the rear uh because we do have a public right of way um fronting it. Uh planned environmental units uh as a reminder are similar to this city's uh planned residential development overlay districts um in that they allow smaller sized lots around large tracks of common ground. The topography is somewhat sloped on this property with the residents on a slight hill. Uh the lot descends 4 feet to the front of it or to the southwest and 12 feet to the rear or the northeast. The lot is covered in grassy turf. Uh there is a 10-ft utility easement to the rear of the uh lot and also a 5-ft easement on each of its sides. Uh the petitioner is requesting um as stated to build a new retaining wall on the back portions of the sides of the lot and on the uh rear property line as well. Uh this retaining wall would have a maximum of 8 ft in height uh particularly towards this central area of the rear. Um and then it would taper slightly to each side and then taper to

one foot um on the sides. Uh it is um planned to be concrete block and uh the location of it will be uh 1 to two feet from the public sidewalk. Along with this wall uh the petitioner is planning to uh build an alum black aluminum fence on top of it. Um, and all of this together will require a zero foot setback from both the front yard uh setback distance requirements and the sideyard setback distance requirements. Here you can see a 3D rendering of it provided by the petitioner. Um, so here you can see the wall and then you can see the fence on top of it. Uh this is another 3D rendering provided by the petitioner. And as you can see um the highest point of the wall is in this central area here. Uh the petitioner has also provided us more details regarding the fence which you also saw in the rendering. Um but this gives you a sense of what that that style looks like. Uh this is the front of the dwelling uh looking east and in front of the dwelling is Timber Meadow Drive and we're looking southeast along it. Uh this is the southeastern sideyard of the dwelling. And this is the northeastern sideyard.

This is the rear of the home. Uh looking across Stucker Road. So this is Strucker Road. We're standing across it. And this is the subject dwelling. Uh this fence, as you see in this photo, um is deceptive. This is not the rear property line for this property. Um it actually comes up closer to the sidewalk and that's where the new concrete retaining wall uh would be placed. So again, uh that wall would be a couple feet from this public sidewalk. And this is the petitioner's rear yard. Uh this is the petitioner's fence. We're looking southwest here. We're looking along the fence line looking northwest. Uh this is the neighbor uh to the uh to the west. and the rear yard. And this is the neighbor to the south. Again, we're still in the petitioner's rear yard. This is standing in the rear yard area looking across Stucker Strucker Road to the northeast to give you a sense of the surrounding area. Uh this is the Clayton Woods uh subdivision looking east across Stucker Road from the property. Uh this is standing in that rear yard area of the property. We're looking north and this is the Ben Bomber House

which is a historic landmark in Wildwood. This is looking southeast uh along Stucker Road. Uh the department has received three written comments in regards to this request. Two were from the same person. um and they were in support. Uh that was the next door neighbor. Um additionally, the department has received one other comment in opposition to the request. And that concludes my presentation at this time. If you have any questions, Director Vunich and I are available to answer them. Thank you, Miss Keith. Any initial questions? M. Yeah, I have a question. Um last month we had asked for um a rendering like what was presented but this rendering is considerably out of scale. The fence is 4T and the wall that they're showing here is about 4T. If you look at the rendering this one here the wall would be 2 ft taller than the adjacent fence. And then at the other end, which would be the south end, it would be 8 ft tall where the uh drainage way is. And like I said, the the rendering is is way out of scale here. So I want everybody to understand that this wall is going to the top of the fence and then the fence would be put on top of that. If you looked at this drawing correctly, the person's 5 foot eight. The walls right behind him about 3 ft away.

Okay, Mr. Mr. Chair. Yes. Go ahead. To Mr. Le's comment. Certainly, we understand that renderings are a generalization and I will defer to the petitioner to describe how they developed it. Thank you. Thank you, Director Munich. Any other questions, comments? All right. Thank you, Miss Keefe. This time, would 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. How's it going? Well, I'm Zach Wayhart, owner of STL Heartscape Solutions. And your relationship to this property? Oh, I'm the contractor hired to to do the work and the engineering and all that. Yes. All right. So, can Sorry, I'm like frazzled. I haven't worked in the field for two years. I've been building block walls for the past few days, so I'm a little fried out. But, um, I just could you pull up the pictures, too, just so we can look at those. So, the rendering does, you know, obviously it's a rendering. It's a 3D rendering. It's given us a concept drawing. It's not an actual engineer drawing. Um, however, it was more for color choice to see that. Also, it it includes the embedment of that wall. So a lot of that wall again from this far when we were talking about the picture from the dece how deceptive it is to see you know that hillside and that person in front of it too. So I mean that is the part where the wall is a little bit shorter. So we we're counting for embedment too in front of there. So we've got 18 inches of that wall in the ground. So it's pretty much right on the money right there. So, and also that the only thing that may not be perfectly scale is the sidewalk, but it goes a little bit further down, which,

you know, maybe 8 in off, but again, it's it's counting for embedment, too. Um, last last month when we were here, I mean, we pretty much had all this stuff figured out, had everything labeled out. Look, this is an issue with erosion. Um, we had some back and forth with my client and I don't know who it was, but anyways, long story short, um, you know, can we go to the pictures of the erosion that's shown in there? Because we were talking about the pictures and looking at the trees and everything else, but really the erosion issue is right in front of our face on the pictures. Um, go to the next one. See the street creep right there or the the sidewalk creep? That's because that hillside is sliding into the sidewalk. You guys have been out. The city of Wildwood was has been out there how many times, Joe? Two or three three times now to fix that. They've excavated it out. Spending money to do that. That didn't work. They put gravel down there. They put a drain down there. None of that stuff. Or did you guys put a drain down there or did you guys just make a make a basin? Yeah, I think there was a bunch of clean gravel that was put down there, but basically creating a basin, a way for that water to to drain out. So that's continuing to happen. If you go to the next picture, that's the erosion on the left side of the hill where everything is working its way down and it's washing out. It's washed all the roots off of that tree, causing that tree to die right there. That thing's been dead for quite some time now. As well as the other one. I don't think we have a clear picture of that. But then if you go to the next picture, that's the top of the hill. And there's no way to fix this other than putting something there substantial enough to stop that hillside from moving. So regardless of if we you know again getting this thing pushed through. Um you know that's it's it's clearcut right in the pictures. I mean it's it needs to be done. Something needs to be done otherwise it's going to continue having you guys out there to try to fix this. And it's a nuisance to the city of

Wildwood. I mean correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, to go out there and fix a a hillside slipping onto the sidewalk because somebody's walking and they're like, "Oh, this doesn't look right." Well, we're putting a a plan together to make sure that this doesn't happen again and the homeowner is going to pay for it, not the city of Wildwood. So, you know, if the rendering's a little bit off, if we need to go back and do that, I mean, mainly we were focusing on the colors because the people that were next door and around, they wanted to know like, hey, what color is this thing going to be? How tall is it going to be? And it's, you know, obviously, you know, the renderings that we use, it's again, it's just to get a a slight visual to make sure this thing, you know, obviously fits the the color palette cuz nobody cares about the engineering behind the wall. You know, let's just be honest about that is the engineering behind the walls is is put there to make sure that that thing is not going to move and the the ground behind that is stable and it's going to stop the erosion. You know, the color is what everybody was worried about. So, that's kind of what we we were pushing on in that. help. Um, but again, I mean, if you guys push this through, I mean, we'll whatever we got to do to make sure that this works. I mean, if it's something where you guys want to have some control over the height of the wall or or whatever, I mean, I don't think that we're uh in opposition of that. Um, but again, it's trying to take care of this. The client that we have to was again mowing this grass and slipped down this hill. I mean, if you drive past, I mean, you can see how steep it is. It's not just a a little, you know, a little hill. It's it's not very long, but it's very steep. So, any pretty much it. Any questions, comments, concerns from the board? Maybe you could clarify for us. Um, clearly water has run down through there. You can obviously see that. So when you put the wall up, water is still

going to want to run that direction. So what is your plan to capture that water or divert it or to take it bring it down? You know what how you Good question. Thanks. Yeah. No, I mean so it's I mean basically the the way that that that wall is designed is to stabilize the backside of that wall with angular aggregate, which is a clean aggregate. So basically it's a it's a massive French drain. So what that does is it allows that water to go behind that wall, sink through that and slowly work its way out versus, you know, you get a 10-in rain and it's just rushing down the hill. So I mean it's basically going to alleviate the, you know, the speed of that that water rushing down the hill or the runoff and then there's going to be um exhaust points every 25 foot throughout the wall to let that water slowly come out. in front of that wall where the concrete's going to be. We're going to put gravel in front of that to where it's there's not going to be any turf or anything else that needs to be maintained by the city or anybody else. And it's just going to be a giant drain swale in front of it. Kind of like what they started with on the one end, but we're going to continue that the length of the wall cuz we're setting back about a foot off of it. So, as the water comes in, it gets caught in the aggregate or whatever. Correct. Yeah. It's not going to obviously go over the wall or that kind of thing, right? It's going to go down and there's a pipe down there that's going to collect that and then every what' you call them? Some kind of ports or something? It's it's an ex I call it an exhaust point, but it's it's basically like the the tip of a tea kettle, you know, so where it doesn't allow to build up hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Okay. So then the water exit through those ports, correct? Onto what? So it's not if the water's ever coming out of that wall, shooting out of it like that, we all have problems, you I mean, there's there's bigger problems than just that that all that's supposed to do is allow it's a leech pipe. It allows the water to slowly go in there and it it leeches out at its own free will. You know, it's basically like a um

a high school student. It takes the path of least resistance. You know, it's just going to go through there and then slowly work its way outside of the wall. So, yeah, I think the obvious concern is just we're not going to just move the problem around. No, I mean this is Yeah, this is all going to drain back to the back of that wall and it's going to work its way and filter through. I mean, you've got non-filter fabric. You've got other soil behind there and you've also got the angular aggregate and it's 6' tall and I think 8t tall in some areas. So, what it's going to do is it's going to slowly work down to the bottom of that wall which is embedded 18 to 24 in in some places. So, so that it doesn't blow out the wall or push it out or squirt out of the wall, it's going to slowly raise till it hits that pipe. as it hits that pipe, it's going to slowly work its way out of the wall. And it's not going to be it's going to be dispersed evenly versus all in one area because right now everything's coming down to that corner. You can kind of see how the water's draining on the backside, but it's coming down to those two spots. One where the one the dead tree that was a few years back and the one that just recently died. So, okay. Thank you. Yeah, I have a question. So you had mentioned the embedment at the base of the wall. So what is the wall height from grade to grade? Because I think we can allow a 6ft wall without going through this process. Yeah. And where I'm going is if you had 18 in, you would be 4'6 on the neighbor to the north and uh 5'6. Yeah. on our um 6'6 on the one to the south which is only six inches long. Well, and that's and that's the thing. So, but eight feet is pretty tall. Well, and that's the thing like with the you know with permitting and all this stuff and we you know my my wife's here tonight too and she does a lot of the permitting and stuff. She's like why do we have to like there's only going to be five foot exposed like why

do we have to get this engineered at 8 foot tall? And the reason is is they count all the way down to the the base rock the top of the base rock. you know, just I haven't shot great elevations on the sidewalk. You know, I do have one on the one end and one on the other, but it does kind of undulate a little bit. So, most areas it's going to be 18 in, but you know, there will be a couple areas where it's going to be 24 to where we can keep that that level terrace, but I would I would imagine there's not going to be too many spaces where the wall is actually going to be 6 foot over elevation, you know? I mean, it might be a little bit over that four, six inches, you know? So, I mean, counting your embedment. So, I mean, if it's something where we need to um limit or restrict the height on it, you know, I don't think that uh David would be opposed to that uh our client to. And I think that that's something that if you know, now Joe, correct me on this one, but if it's six feet grade to grade, then we do not need a variance. Yes, our code allows walls 6 feet or less in height to be up to the property line in principle. But again, the information provided in support of this request indicates a top of wall elevation of zero and bottom of bottom of wall of eight. So that's what we're using to basically make our determination. I I think there's some confusion there. So if you could clarify that and yeah I mean that's and that's basically it is yeah you have 18 in you know in some areas 24 I mean I could go out and get a topo survey of this too I mean if we had to do something like that but I mean that's going to cost you know thousands of dollars for something where you know obviously it's on one end it's going to be about 4'6 out of the ground the other end it's going to be around six six and a half foot out of the ground you know I'm counting the embedment and that's just because we're trying to do everything right you know I could tell Jay like hey this is going to be six foot tall and made it work and shot my elevations to make it perfectly 6 foot. But we're coming here honestly giving you guys all the information and

then doing all of our due diligence as far as the engineering and then going to the different neighbors and then you know going so far as making a 3D rendering for a retaining wall to make sure that these people could check out the the color and everything. We went back and forth on the color a couple times and we got them to agree on the the color that we put in that um into the uh the rendering. So, I mean, if it's something where we need to restrict it to six foot, I mean, I don't think that's going to be that big of a deal. Um, my biggest thing was trying to raise it up in the middle of that wall a little bit to where it would slow the speed of that water because everything is running downhill. Well, you you would significantly impact the flow of the water. Mhm. At six feet. Yeah. I mean, no, absolutely. No, I was I was talking about Sorry, I from right to left. If you're the picture that we're looking at right now from right to left, if we had it a little bit taller, then that water is not going to be rushing down the hill. If we have it all at 6 foot tall, so it's stairstepping down, it's going to push all that water down to that corner to where we're going to have to probably put some sort of a basin drain or something there, too, which wasn't planned because we kind of planned it with the the engineering and the grade. So, yeah. Question. Uh, Robin, could you throw the photo up with the street view looking up the street? Cuz I think this slopes north to south with this road, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, you're constantly going uphill, right? So, there is no valley in the middle. just a point of reference here. And uh yeah, because we kind of had the way that we had that designed is to where it's going to be more level until the very end to where it slowly drops off and tapers at the very end versus tapering the whole way because it is 160

foot stretch. Which which side are you tapering to? So the side that we're stand or the side that we're looking at the south side. Yeah, south side. Sorry. Yeah, that's going to be up there at the top. I mean, that wall's I mean, again, going to be three and a half, four foot exposed. I mean, it's not really there's not too much of a slope over there. So, so I don't see why we need to go through this process. Don't tell me that. We just came back for months. Well, the the report had 6 foot and 8 foot. And 8 foot is literally at the top of the fence on this drawing. So, what he's showing here in the rendering is is I think what you're intending to construct. Yeah. We're going to be a couple inches over your guys', you know, your guys um gosh, I'm on the brain fart right now, but your guys requirement of six foot. we're going to be just a hair over that like in the middle section. But, you know, if we need to drop it down to where we step it down sooner to where we're taking a block off just in that section, I don't think that's a big deal. Um, I mean, I could definitely make that work, but again, I mean, you guys have control of it, too. As long as we get this thing pushed through with whatever conditions you guys may or may not want to put on it, but, you know, we're willing to work with you, do it the right way. over. But I I think what you're hearing is that uh you when we talk about hardship, practical difficulty, and we're talking about if your wall was 2 in shorter, maybe 4 in shorter. Mhm. Do you really still does a petitioner really still have a hardship? Well, I mean, the hardship is obviously the severity of the slope. we want to build it the height that we have it in there. So, I mean it's 6 in taller. So,

I mean that's that's what we propose is what we want to build, but I mean you guys are telling me that I mean I would like to try to get it built that way just because that's what we had talked about and we've had this plan for months now going back and forth and making sure that everything's right. And I mean we put a lot of hours in on our end too to to try to make sure that we had everything put together, all of our eyes dotted and tees crossed. So, um, you know, again, I I see what you're saying. I mean, we could drop it down, you know, but it's we've already been here two months now. I've been laying blocks all day. I got cuts in my hands. I got I had to wash my hair in the sink to get up here and try to get this thing to get pushed through. So, having a good day, Mr. Lee, I mean, are your what are your thoughts on on a a foot variance at this point? I don't see the hardship here. I mean, it's it's not warranted. Yeah. I think it seems like the petitioner can still accomplish what they're trying to do. Um, the last 6 in, it just means that the slope of the yard or whatever tapers just a little bit more. And unless I'm missing something here, I mean, I see your point. It it you're going to get such a vast improvement already by staying within six feet. The last six inches seems like, wow, why what's the big deal with that? Yeah. I mean, then also some of that sidewalk load too does unul I mean you guys aren't going to come out there and with a ruler and everything if we are a couple inches over six foot and I mean because the way that we're presenting the drawing to like county would be obviously they're going to want to know how deep that wall is. So, sure, even if we change it and say, "Hey, we're going to build it at 7 foot here and 7t down here." You know, that's above your guys's, you know, technically

that wall is technically over your guys's uh allowance in height. Correct. Cuz it's 6 foot. 6 foot from grade to grade. Okay. And you're going to want a little lip on that. You don't want the water coming over the top of it. Right. Yeah. So, I mean, the the way that this is written is 6 feet at one end and 8 ft at the other. So, that's what the presentation is and that's what we'll vote on. Great degree. Yes, we're just making our determinations whether the board of adjustment needs to hear the case or not based upon the elevations provided. And from our review as well as the Department of Public Works, we have segments of the wall that are 8 ft and that's 2 ft more than what's allowed under code. Thank you. Yet what you're saying is in reality from grade to grade is not the true. If you ask St. Louis County, it's from the bottom of the base block to the top of the wall. And that's just so when I I'm going to have to go manipulate an engineer's drawing stamped engineer drawing and say that it's only 6 foot when re in reality it's going to be 8 foot or 7 1/2T and it's going to be over the requirements of county has to be that height. So I'm I can't go in there and manipulate these drawings. I mean I I'm not a PE and you know I've got a great relationship with with Joe Strain the guy that we work with and you know so then I'm then I'm lying to somebody and I'm not willing to do that. I mean, I would rather just, you know, get this thing pushed through the way that it is. And, you know, obviously you guys know it's it's a small ask. It's not like, hey, there's a hardship here or not. I mean, there's there's still the hardship of what we're trying to do. And if the wall has to be 8 foot, I know you guys are saying that your guys's allowances from grade to grade. That's not how the county looks at it, you know. So, I I I

just don't want to go in there and start manipulating drawings or ask Joe to do something that's not true because then that changes the structural calculations of his grid lengths and everything else. So, then he has to go in there and change his drawing to be like, "Okay, it's only a sixoot wall, but technically we need longer grid." And it just it just muddies it all up, you know? I mean, but Well, let me ask you this. And and I think I'm going to get off this horse, but you're you're digging down and putting in your base. What if your base went down six more inches? The whole wall goes down six more inches. You still have 8 ft that you've presented to the county. Is that is that a potential way to deal with that? And still you're compliant with that. But then I mean Yeah. Just No. Well, then we're just then we're stealing money from Yeah. I mean, then we're stealing money from David Fle, you know, like being like, "Hey, we're going to build this wall 8 inches lower than it needs to really be. I mean, even 18 in is a deep embedment. We just like to, you know, overbuild a little." Just thought I'd ask. Yeah. Yeah. Director Vunich obviously the recommendation report is not supporting it any has anything would anything have changed this discussion did anything change from the department stance I may have jumped the gun a little bit here but well again I am not a PE as well but the wall if the wall is 8 ft regardless of what's visible from the sidewalk it's still an 8ft structure and that's how the code treats it and that's how the building code treats it. So from the department's perspective again we made the

determination the variance was needed based upon the information provided the department's report has changed which is unfortunate we don't like doing that as miss ke mentioned in the first discussion but in this particular instance we think we can solve many of the problems by just adhering to the code required limitations questions. That being said, any other questions, comments for the for the petitioner? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing none, uh we will open up the floor to 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 of the board's questions unless the chair allows additional time. Mr. Chair, I do not have speakers cards, but I do have a raised hand online. Okay. If the individual online could state their name, address relation to this pro to to this uh petition and we'll get you sworn in. Hi, I'm sorry. Am I Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. if you could state your name, address, relationship to this uh petition, and we'll get you sworn in. Sure. Name's Jamie Corwin. Address is 250 Timber Meadow Drive. I am the neighbor directly to the north of the petitioner. Okay. Sworn in. Mr. Corwin, do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make in this cause will

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth of Huppy God? Yes. Go ahead, M. I just I I have a question. Um DJ and Jackie have have explained the the project to us and um I mean our our primary concern is just the flow looking at the back of Strucker because we have several wood fences but then several houses down a neighbor put in one of the plastic fences. But I'm curious just in the conversations that have been had as far as the 8 ft versus 6 feet and what's buried, is there the ability to give an approval with um an addendum of sort that it is 8t granted that a max of 6 feet above property line is viewable or is visible. In other words, they've got, you know, because I guess the the contractor was saying the city requires that 8 feet or the county requires that 8 feet. I realize the city has the six foot max on it. Um, so whether it's, you know, the variance at 6 and 1/2 ft because the way it was explained to me at our at our side, the corner is going to be just below our 4ft fence. at the far side. Um it's just going to be above five feet and there is a bow to the property there. Um so I'm just curious if it's possible to grant variance where you put the stipulation as to what the maximum above grade level is that's available. I rep do you have that answer? I don't I well the board of adjustment has wide latitude in terms of how it considers

its decisions and so yes if you wanted to say that this 8ft wall is only visible from Strucker Road or the final finished grade 6 feet that's a condition you can add. Yeah. because it because it sounded like what the contractor was saying was at the peak it was going to be he I think he had said 6 and 1/2 ft because he's going to they're going to put 18 in below grade for stability. So, it just just listening to it, it sounded like if there was a stipulation put in that's approval with max visible um height of X, whether it's 6 and 1/2 or six, however it was put, it would address both the county requirements and the city code. Okay. Anything else that our other our other request and I had submitted this in writing as well was if we if we look at color options, you know, as dark as possible because it would the fences on both side are stained a dark brown. And I think then if there's a wall that's that's a dark brown, it still maintains some of that continuity um irregardless of the the fence above just from a line of sight on it. Okay, that's all I have. Any questions, comments for Mr. Corwin. Thank you, sir. Any additional speaker card or raised hands? Miss Keith, your chair? No, not At this time, uh would anybody like to hear the oral presentation of the department's report?

Seeing none, uh we'll go ahead and offer the opportunity for the department of planning to make any final comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair and members of the board, as I briefly mentioned when questioned, the department has revised its recommendation as not supporting the 8-ft height at this particular location. We believe that there are other options that do not require the variance and the other options would include a 6ft high retaining wall per code and certainly storm water management issues can be addressed by a number of best practices. And so from that perspective, the department has revised its recommendation. It apologizes to the petitioner as well as the board, but we feel strongly variant should not be supported. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Munich. Miss Mr. Stronger. Yeah. Um, when you say six feet, is this grade to grade as Mr. Lee says? So from like the sidewalk, the lowest point of the sidewalk to the top is six feet. And the information I'm reviewing still seems to indicate that at several sections of the wall, it's an 8ft wall cuz we use the toe and top or bottom and top. And again, u done this a long time and I've never been presented over a discussion where yeah, it's an 8ft ball, but you only see four or 5 ft of it because we bury it. It's a structural unit and the information we have still seems to indicate that the bottom of the wall and that's usually taken a finished grade is zero and this is eight. So, it's an 8ft wall. So, I'm a little confused myself, but all I know is is

that based upon the information that was presented to the department, we're dealing with a retaining wall system that needs a variance. And the department in this case says, "Yes, you can still build a 6-ft wall without a variance, and you can address storm water by best practices." And we don't believe the variance is needed because there are alternatives. Thank you. So it it does just cuz you know we've talked in a circle here I feel but we are talking a matter of 6 in correct if if the Mr. Way hard is saying the visible the way the way that it's presented is bottom of wall to top of wall grade. In this case, he needs six and a half. Maybe he he's he's saying that the wall the bottom of the physical wall that's at the base to the top of the wall is 8 ft. But he's also saying that from the bottom to the grade like where the sidewalk is 18 in or whatever. So, so there's really only showing is 6 foot maybe 6 in or 6'4 in is how I understand it. But I think that's what he's saying. But that is not how the ordinance is written. It's visual to visual. Okay. So you if he wanted to take this to frost 30 in he would just go deeper. The visual aspect of the wall is the same which in this case is six and a half ft. And again we do not premise the structural it's a single structural unit that is inclusive of 8 ft of block. And so what's visible our code doesn't say what's visible is what we determine 6 feet is. It's the

structural unit. Okay. So from the bottom of the wall to the top of the wall, you can do six feet. And if it if it turns out that it's visible of 4 feet, then it's visible for 4 feet. But the but the code says bottom of the wall, top of the wall six feet. A structure is the assemblage of material for occupancy or use. And this is a single structural unit. Got it. Okay. Um, that's a very good question, Mr. Rener. Um, that has been in the county zoning ordinance since 1965. when we incorporated in 1995, we carried it over because if we didn't, all those walls out there that are six feet in the sidey yard, rear yard or front yard setbacks would have been legal but non-conforming. And so I can't necessarily give you a rationale why um why St. Louis County now almost what 50 plus years later or more 60 years I guess uh did it. I will tell you that over the years landscape walls that don't hold a charge um have gone from two feet without requiring a permit to now three feet. So things change. Mr. Wayart, come on back up and there's anything you want to add given kind of the discussion and that please alleviate some of the questions here. I'm sorry. Me and Joe have a great working relationship, too. But I I just want to, you know, clarify. So, originally we said six foot from grade to grade and now it's six foot from the bottom to the top. So, what what is it? That's cuz I'm just trying

to clarify that because the way that we have it designed and it again, there isn't a charge in this wall, you know, it's 8 ft from the top of the wall to the bottom of the wall the way that we have it designed, the way our engineer designed it. So technically it's an 8ft wall but it's 6'6 above grade. So I mean that's that that's what I'm just trying to make sense of because I mean he said it himself that it's 6 foot from grade to grade and now it's 6 foot from the bottom of the wall to the top of the wall is the wall. So I'm just trying to be clear on that because our you know the way that we have the design written and drawn up and stamped is it's an 8ft wall but it's only 6 foot and a half you know compared you know for your guys code. So, that's I'm just trying to make sense of that. Do you have that drawing that will show the uh we have it embedment? No, there's no there's no cross-section of it. It's a top of wall and bottom of the wall. And then we have the Oh, you do have the drawing, don't you? It's like 80 pages long, but I think you should have it. I can pull up on my show. You have to right

I know it's it's again it's We're It's still going to have about a 2 and 1/2t slope from the their patio to the wall way we have it designed but anything more than that's still kind of a steeper slope I mean it's less than 3 to one but it's you know it's again could we build it a block less and call it 7 and 12 or 7'4 in I mean we could but it's still again it's still over you know the required height so I mean that's that's what I'm I'm trying to show hard or prove hardship because that's what we're trying to build it at that height so again with mitigating the water. We don't want that water rushing down the hill. And anything less than where it's at right now. It's going to make that water move faster, which is going to incur additional um uh storm water type work, which wouldn't be needed if we built that wall up to the height and not have it as steep. Yeah. But a two-tiered wall though at 8 foot though still requires a permit though, am I right? Yeah, that's still that still requires engineered drawings. I mean, you can do two three foot walls, I believe, without with using the masterided by the manufacturer. However, um then that bottom wall is holding a charge now because then that that upper wall is an additional weight held up by the structure down below. So, anything that's it's it's okay, you know, it's it's it's I mean, I'm so glad that I never went to school for this because like, you know, I would have had I would

have been had it so easy in the field building walls, you know, and not smelled like crap when I'm trying to look at the uh you have on your Yeah, it is. Go to the top. Basically what that's showing is the different heights of the wall on the left side on that left column and then it's showing gosh I think Oh, thank you, Joe. So, that's exposed height, correct? And then that shows the the grid lengths and then the the positioning of the grid, how long they are and on what course they're on. Sorry, not course, elevation. So, in your rendering, getting back to that with your neighbor's fence to the north, their fence is 48 in, if you were at 6'6 exposed, it'd be 2 and 1/2 ft higher than that. And then another 4T of metal fence. Um, that ele the top part of that elevation, their their fence doesn't go past that on the left side. I mean, it goes to the same distance that the other one is. No, what I'm getting at in your drawing here. Again, it's very misleading. So, if this is 6 feet, six, you'd be 2 and 1/2 ft higher than his fence. That would be the bottom of your new fence. That's where it's going to be lower at that top end anyways. I mean, we got six foot. It's going to be about 4 foot, four and a half foot over there. So, it looks to me

like the grade rises up toward the neighbor. Sure. That's that's why we didn't that's why we didn't present six feet out of the above grade. Yeah. And that's why we didn't present that because at the first time because we never really do a 3D rendering for a retaining wall just because it's it's not needed. But the the color was the main concern the last time we were here was the color. So we put it together to where we showed this wall with the color and everything to to present it. I mean this is Bible right here. This this 60page document from the engineer is the bible for this wall. Got all the structural cuts. It's got all the embedment, grid, everything. I mean, it's a rendering is a rendering. We our contracts, we have a 15-page design agreement that we have our customers sign that says that, hey, look, this is a this is visual representation. This is not exactly to spec and scale of what the the finished project's going to be. That's going to be speced out in the engineering architectural plan. So, I actually have a question for Director Bunich. Um I I want to just revisit this 6 foot wall structure. Okay, I I get that. Is it was the intention of the of the code that you see six feet or it really is just a 6ft structure? Cuz you could technically bury five of the six feet in the ground and you'd have a 1 ft wall. I mean, that's an obviously extreme example, but a six-foot retaining wall is never going to be six feet above the ground because you're always going to be below grade. Always. Well, a portion of the wall will always be below grade or

the stability, right? And to build the rest of the structure on top of it, but from the perspective of the department, if you use the measure of what I can see, well, somebody could push a little dirt up to it and it's like, well, that's finished grade. Well, it's just it's not a standard that's enforcable, nor is it one that can be done consistently because each contractor may have a different way of trying to assess what a sixft wall is. It's a structural unit. If it's 8t, it's 8t. Whatever is visible, well, that's fine. But the best approach and the most enforcable and consistent approach is when the engineer signs off on it and it says 8 ft. That's what we're looking at. Yeah, that makes I mean that makes perfect sense. I think the the thing that we have to understand is if if a person says you can have a 6ft wall, that doesn't mean you're going to have a sixoot wall. That means realistically you won't even have a five foot wall because you're going to be more than a foot down into the ground for stability. Right. Right. And we talked about and that was the thing earlier too is like we talked about grade to grade six foot, you know? So that's I mean I can drop it I mean I can make a non-engineered plan that shows six foot. So we don't need the engineers drawing then I can turn this into county and it's still going to be the same thing, right? Is that is that okay? Because from your guy from what you said earlier was again I won't answer that question without something drawn and available for review and the review is also done by our department of public works which has the engineers associated with it. So again, I just want to emphasize what you see and what is built. That's you can't use what you see as a measure relative

to building code, structural stability, and the safety of the the the wall itself. So I appreciate that the wall may not look like 8 feet, but it is an 8ft wall. Got it. Yeah. And so the earlier discussion about from grade to grade is not relevant. So that wasn't true then or it wasn't Well, it can't be true because you don't know. I mean, if we're talking about just structure, what's what's grade to grade that that as Joe said, you can throw some dirt in there. I can change the grade 6 in with a shovel and a wheelbarrow, you know? I mean, yeah. So, okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Schweart. Any other questions, comments, concerns? Any other final comments from the department? No sir, but thank you. At this time, we will close the proceeding for a vote. Uh, may I have a motion to approve, a motion to deny, or approve with conditions? We'll make to approve. Go ahead, Mr. Lee. I was going to make a motion to deny following the department's recommendation. So, we have a second to deny.

We'll have to go ahead. Mr. Chair, without a second on the motion. The motion fails, so there's an opportunity to do another motion of a different nature. or if you all want more time to think about what you've heard tonight, there can be also a motion to postpone. So, we do have a motion to deny. Um, as director said, without a second, um, fails. It fails. Um if there was an inclination to state a different motion or to um pen the roll call for any other information or any clarity, we can do that as well. Okay. Do we have a second to postpone um for further consideration? Without a motion, without a second to that motion, that motion fails as well. We'll state one more time. Do we have a motion to Do we have to restate that motion to deny and wait for a second or can we again? As you know, we've had a motion to recommend a denial of the variance which failed for lack of a second. We had a motion to postpone which failed for the lack of a second. So, the other option is a motion to approve um which would require a second and for

the five members to vote in favor. And if no motion receives a second, I would have to defer to the city attorney and ask, is that a denial because a failure to have a motion or is it a postponement because an action is required? Could you go to the full screen so we could have the city attorney Certainly. Can everyone hear me? Okay. we can. Okay, great. Um, I only heard a little bit of that whenever the board members were speaking just because I think some people have their mics on and some may not. But what I gathered from that is that um director Vunich is correct that if there is no vote on something to either deny it or to approve it, um if it is not postponed through a motion, if it is not laid on the table to be addressed later on in this same meeting, it will move to unfinished business onto the next agenda. Does that answer your question? Do you have any follow-ups? Nope. I'm going to So, what we'll do is we have not um offered up and we'll do it right right here. Is there a motion to approve? Approve or approve with conditions. So now all options have been put forth to the to the to the group. So I would recommend or just say can we have a motion to table it for five minutes to discuss Can we discuss it privately? No. Nope. Okay. Can we open it back up to ask questions of the department or the

petitioner? I know we closed that part of the of the meeting, but can we make a motion to open that back up if we want to ask some more questions? I believe so. There hasn't been a roll call, but Sorry, just a quick question for clarity. Would you like to essentially pause this and then move on to the other items on the agenda and then bring it back at the end within this same meeting or a separate meeting? I I believe uh member Sprunger is asking if we can and currently right now open it back up for a few questions and some clarity both from the department and the petitioner. Correct. Technically, we did close for a vote, but can we open that back up and and and if if there's a question or concern that's keeping someone from from voting either way, go ahead and and try to address that current right now. So, I would like to defer to director Vunich um just because I have never been posed that question, but as far as I'm concerned, since there hasn't been a vote actually taken on it, then the business has not been disposed of. So the only uh similar situation I can provide to the board for guidance is that at city council this has occurred on a couple of occasions and typically at that time the mayor request a motion to reopen the discussion and a second and then it only requires a simple majority because it's not taking a formal action regarding the request. Okay. Thank you. So, I think we'll follow that precedent and say, uh, do I have a motion to, um, take a few steps back and reopen the discussion and allow for additional, um, testimony, questions? Um, I I I would like to make a motion to

um reopen our discussion. Okay. Do we have a do we have a second for that? I'll second it. Okay. So, I have a second. I uh as well um will vote to reopen the discussion. So I believe that's our simple majority and we can uh we can start take a few steps back here. Go ahead, Mr. Sprunner. Mr. Chair, just for the purposes uh could you just ask for a voice vote? All in favor of the motion that's on the floor. Good call. Uh do we can we do a v uh a voice vote for those who um want to open up the discussion again? Vote I or nay. All in favor? All in favor. I I thank thank you director Munich. So, I am going to ask Director Vunich um a question that I hope you feel comfortable answering, but maybe you don't. And if you don't, I get that. But um just I'm back on this six-foot wall thing, and I understand what it is now. I got that. The department is feeling like if they did a six-foot wall, it would accomplish what the petitioner is setting out to do. And what that would mean, if I understand correctly, is, and I know the grade thing is just kind of a you can't really go by that, but you sort of can just in the sense that it's at the sidewalk. You're probably going to look at about a 4ft wall if you stay with a 6ft structure, maybe maybe 4 and 1/2 ft,

probably not five. So that being the case because that's what's above grade likely this the city feels like yeah they can still get done they can get the erosion control they can provide um a surface area where the family can enjoy that area you know yeah we've taken down taken it down a foot and a half maybe or whatever But the department did that evaluation and said, "Yeah, we think that they still are going to be able to get the benefits that they're looking for." Well, certainly not to the extent that the petitioner is requesting, but a retaining wall will address some of the current conditions relative to the slope of the rear yard to Strucker Road. Mhm. It won't address it to the extent as requested as I mentioned. And then there are other approaches to address the erosion that's occurring in the rear yard area due to soil type and slope. Again, I believe the board has the authority if a motion is made to improve the wall to limit the extent that's visible. And I would use sidewalk grade because that's established and won't change because the applicant nor the contractor have the authority to work in the rightway. That from sidewalk grade the maximum that's visible is 6 feet or 6.6 6.5 ft whatever the circumstance might be. So you I believe you have that law that much discretion in this regard. Okay. So I'm now going to ask you the follow the obvious follow-up question

which is you know does the department would the department view it favorably if that restriction were put on an approval and say it is 6 and 1/2 ft from sidewalk grade from sidewalk grade top of sidewalk grade you know as an example because That's I think at the end of the day what the petitioner is really asking for is they yeah it's an 8ft wall but people are going to see 6 and 1/2. The department would prefer if there's a favorable vote that we use a known elevation to measure the visible component of the wall and that to me is the sidewalk that's within the public rightway area. And then if you are inclined I think Mr. Corwin's request that it match the surrounding built environment which are the two fences on either side is reasonable as well. So if those two conditions are included certainly I think the board could accept the I the department could accept the board's action certainly. So that would make sense to the to the department. Right. Again, the unknown finish grade is what's concerning to the department as that as that known elevation at the base of the wall. Okay. So, to just get that again, you were tying it in with the neighbors. I'm sorry. Help me with that. What the condition would be again? Well, it's just more of an aesthetic component. Sure. And I think as part of our original recommendation when we endorsed the wall at the requested height, we had talked about the color. Retaining walls

come in var colors. A lot of people use the concrete or the gray color and it's a very stark color, particularly when no other portion of the area has that color associated with it. Mr. Corin mentioned that both fences on either side of the applicant slot have a stain that's a dark brown. So I think what the petitioner is proposing is to try to match that. So if you were to recommend approval of variance, we would like that condition contained in it as well. Okay. So that would be a second condition as well as the height above sidewalk grade. As long as you the condition reads from sidewalk grade to top of wall, it's a six and a half feet maximum, then that's fine. Okay. All right. Okay. And director, you just give us a little guidance on the color because obviously we don't want to leave the subjective. What What wording would you like to see there? I think it's like a rockwood brown or something. I don't I'd have to review the the drawings again, but you know, a color that complements the fence stain color, which is a dark brown. Since we've reopened it up, Mr. Wayhart, if there's come up if you'd like to add to that discussion now that we have a little more definition to to that is I saw you nodding your head. Is what are your thoughts there? I was like, where are we going to get? No, I I I'm good with that. If we have a top out top of concrete, if that's a that's a condition that top of contra or top of concrete is our benchmark, six and a half feet over that, I'm good with that. Tote black is the color by Rockwood and the neighbor, we showed them the sample and they're good with that. So, it was tote black. Yeah, tote black as in t a u p. That kind of taupe. Yes, sir. I was thinking taupe handbag. It's like a It's basically like a brown.

It's just mix the two colors together. So, it's a light and a charcoal mixed together and base mix. So, and just to be clear about the sidewalk grade because the sidewalk has a tin, it's not perfectly flat. We're talking about a 6 and 1/2t rise above the lowest top of concrete, right? Top of concrete. But if the concrete does some of this kind of stuff, we're not talking 6 and 1/2 ft from the high point. We're talking 6 and 1/2 ft from the lowest top of concrete grade. Yeah. Right. Sounds good to me. Okay. So, that seems like that would work for the petitioner as well as for the department. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Any other final comments or questions from the board? Okay. We will now um close the proceeding for a vote. May I have a motion to approve, deny, or approve with conditions? Well, I'll take a shot at this. Um, I'll make a motion to approve the petitioner's request with the two following conditions. First of all, the color of the retaining wall would be taupe black. And the maximum height of the retaining wall, the top of the wall can be no more than 6 and 1/2 ft above the lowest top of sidewalk grade. Did I get that right? Yeah. Yes. I think

we understand what you've described and the petitioner's engineers um petitioner's representative has agreed to it. So I think that works. Okay. Do we have a second for uh Mr. Sprunger's uh approval with the conditions as he stated the two conditions? Can I modify this so that the wall is level because I don't want this to step up. I think we all assume that, but that probably isn't a bad just kind of general. Let's make sure the top of the wall is level across its level. All right, you can restate it. Why don't you restate it, Mr. Sprunger? So, we have taupe. We have taupe black as the color and the second one is the the maximum height of the wall. A level wall at the top can be no more than 6 and 1/2 ft above the top of sidewalk at the lowest point. Okay. Do we have a second for um that approval with conditions motion as stated? I'll second it. Thank you, Mr. Rener. We will now do a roll call. Uh Mr. Sprunger, how do you vote? Approve with conditions. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Riner, approve. Mr. Lee, deny. I approve with the conditions as stated by Mr. Sprunger. Congratulations. The variance is approved. as stated with the conditions. Thank you everyone for the patience on that. Mr. Chair, the last item in the last case tonight is BA11-25

Kevin Rock 3927 Wild Hollow Court, Wildwood, Missouri 63069 requests an exception to the natural resource protection requirements for the purpose of constructing a new twocar detached garage, 900 square ft in area with such being located upon the property at 3927 Wild Hollow Court, located number 26 Y240082. two estates a deer hollow subdivision lot 24 which will require the relocation of a portion of the natural resource protection line and its associated 25- ft foundation setback line. The request is contrary to chapter 420.200 200 natural resource protection standards and procedures of the subdivision and development regulations of the city of wildland municipal code as applied to the property located in the NU non-urban resident district and chapter 415.090 NU non-urban district regulations of the city of Wildwood zoning ordinance. This particular request does include an exchange of protected and nonprotected area which will result in a no net loss or gain in this regard. This property is located in Ward 6. And Mr. Chair, with your permission before Miss Keefe begins. Department would like to introduce 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 Waltwood municipal code, the zoning ordinance, the file that has been developed and maintained by the department of planning regarding this particular case and all contents contained therein, including the department's report with recommendation. And then finally, any testimony provided as part of tonight hearing, including but not limited to maps, plats, letters,

or other materials. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Munich. Mr. Chair, members of the board, uh, our final case this evening involves the relocation of a portion of the final resource protection line and its associated foundational SE setback for the purpose of constructing a twocar detached garage. The subject site is located in far western Wildwood. So, we're we're making the rounds tonight. Uh in the estates at Deer Hollow subdivision. It is located at the terminus of Wild Hollow Court, which is a privately maintained road managed by the HOA ends in a culde-sac. Uh the subject property is occupied by a single family dwelling that was built in 2015. Uh the lot is zoned non- urban residence district uh which uh dictates its associated setbacks. The lot is also governed by the regulations and procedures of the natural resource protection standards of the subdivision and development standards which establish a final resource protection line and a 25 ft foundation setback uh uh distance from that line. uh the together um the zoning district and these regulations just discussed specify where development can occur upon the lot. The purpose of the natural resource protection standards is to protect areas of the lot most susceptible to erosion and also uh to maintain areas where storm water naturally drains. Uh these have been

applied since 1996 and are required on the record plat and in the trust indentures before a lot can be sold. The subject lot has a varied and steep topography with hills and valleys. Uh there is 100 ft of total relief on the lot. It is heavily wooded um with grassy turf area surrounding uh the dwelling itself. This site plan uh shows where the residence is located in relation to the rest of the lot. However, we're going to zoom in. Uh the petitioner is requesting uh to build a detached garage um along with two retaining walls. The retaining walls are not part of the variance request this evening. They do meet the city's regulations. uh of particular importance to this case. Uh this red thick dashed line here is the present uh final resource protection line on the lot and the thinner red line is the 25 ft foundation setback. Uh what the petitioner is proposing to do as part of this request is do an equal exchange of protected and non-protected area and that exchange is demonstrated uh by this green line uh that has been adjusted and then the associated lighter green line which is that foundation setback. In this case, uh because we are talking about a building, uh that foundation uh setback is is applicable here. This is the front of the dwelling looking northwest.

This is looking northeast at Wild Hollow Court. This is looking southeast at the neighbor across um from the petitioner in the culde-sac. Uh this is looking northwest at the sideyard on the southwestern side of the dwelling where the garage is not located. And then this is uh the existing garages associated with the existing dwelling. Uh this is the area proposed for the new garage. Um looking northeast, this is the rear yard area looking northwest. Uh this is standing generally in that area of the proposed garage looking east towards Wild Hollow Court. Um and then this is this is the area of uh the garage. It can be located over here abouts. Um this is that same area different perspective standing closer to Wild Hollow Court. And it should be noted there is a existing well in that location which is dictating some of this placement. Uh there have been previous uh variances granted related to the natural resource protection area in this subdivision um including a variance granted to uh the petitioner's nextdoor neighbor. And that concludes my presentation this evening. No public comments were received by the department. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Keefe.

If you have any questions, we're happy to answer them at this time. Any questions for the department currently? Okay. Thank you. At this time, will the petitioner please um come forward, state his or her name, um address relation to the property, and then we'll get you sworn in by the court reporter. Mr. Chair, our petitioner is on Zoom. Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. Please state your name, um, address, relationship to this property, and, um, we'll get you sworn in. My name is Kevin Ruck. Uh, address is 3927 Wild Hollow Court, Wildwood, Missouri 63069. I'm the property owner. Um, was that all you asked for? Yes, sir. We'll get you sworn in. Mr. Ruck. Mics were Do you solemnly swear the statements you're about to make in this cause will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? A happy gun? Yes, I do. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ruck. If you could please um explain the nature of the request uh and the hardship or practical difficulty necessitating the variance. So, um I think she did a very good job explaining it. I'm trying to build a twocar garage. I need additional space. uh to continue to maintain HOA rules of no storage of anything outside uh visible. As you could see in one of those pictures, I have a trailer now that I store behind the house uh to stay kind of within our rules. Um but I'll be honest, it's flirting with the rules. So, um anyway, I the property is a pretty big hill. Um heavily wooded and I really don't have any other options. the well, the grade, the 50- foot setbacks from the road. Um,

I've hired a civil engineer, as you can see in those plans, to try to determine all of my options, and this is the only option I have. Um, I have discussed with with my HOA. I guess I did not send that to you, Robin. Um, I thought I had forwarded an email I had received from my HOA trustees saying that they have no concerns and this falls well within the rules of the HOA. Um, one of the trustees is actually one of the ones that's gotten a variance on this already. Um, so I think that's a should sum it up. And uh, Mr. Ruck the recommendation report um outlines the condition that you u submit a revised legal description uh to reflect the change in the resource protection line. It looks like you may have preemptively submitted something and you're you're okay with with th those conditions. Yes, sir. Yep. Okay. Did we lose Mr. Rock? I can still hear you guys. Can you hear me? Yes. We Mr. Chair, our projector takes a break about this time at every meeting, but we everybody can still hear us and the proceedings could go forward if you'd like. Yes. Yeah. Yes, please. Yeah. Yes. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Rock. Um, all right. Anything else you'd like to add? And we'll get we'll get the questions and and get this thing moving right along. No, sir. I think the drawings pretty show it pretty well. Any uh questions from the board? Seeing none, um any speakers in the audience that may want to speak in favor or opposition to this request? See nobody in the audience. Is anybody else online?

No. Seeing none, um would anybody like to hear an oral presentation of the department's report? Again, seeing none, um we'll give the the Department of Planning opportunity to make any final comments. Mr. Chair, members of the board, uh the department is supporting this request for many of the same reasons mentioned by the petitioner. Um so I don't think I need to go into them uh too much. Um, as you are probably aware by now from your service on the board, the natural resource protection standards do allow some flexibility to them. Um, particularly in cases like this where there is an equal exchange. Uh, so there is no net loss uh to protected area upon the lot. Um, it's a as as mentioned, it's a very logical location for the garage. any other location would result in more impervious surface and lots of issues associated with the slope. Um so uh given that the petitioner does submit to revised legal description which they have um an exhibit to reflect the change uh we'll go ahead and give them our feedback and then they'll go ahead and get that recorded with the county. Uh that's our condition. Thank you. Thank you Miss Keefe. Any final comments from the board? This time we'll close the proceeding for a vote. May I have a motion to approve? A motion to deny or approve with conditions. I'll make a motion to approve the variance request with the conditions as outlined by the department in their recommendation report. I'll second it. We have a second. Thank you, Mr. Riner.

We have a motion to approve with the conditions uh outlined in the department's recommendation report. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? I'll second it. Is it Was there a second? There was a second. Mr. Riner second. I approve. Vote approve. Mr. Riner, approve. Mr. Sprunger, approve. Mr. Lee, approve. And I approve as well. Congratulations, Mr. Ruck. variance is approved with the conditions as stated. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I guess that gets Do we have the minutes? Miss Keefe. Oh, they're on the We need to Yes. I don't have Oh, you have Oh, because you have the Yes. Okay. Last piece of business is to approve the uh the minutes from last month's meeting. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes? Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Mr. Morris, how do you vote? Approve. Mr. Riner, approve. Mr. Sprunger, approve. Mr. Lee, approve. And I approve of the minutes from last month's meeting as well. So that takes care of that. That any other new old and different business? Okay, let's consider this meeting ajourned. Thank you everybody.