[0:02] Good evening. I'd like to welcome

[0:04] everyone to the uh September 10th, 2026

[0:08] regular meeting of the city of Webster

[0:10] Groves Board of Adjustment. Randy, would

[0:12] you please uh call the role?

[0:14] » Uh Debbie Sberg

[0:15] » Here.

[0:16] » Uh John Bur

[0:17] » Here,

[0:17] » Jennifer Gates

[0:18] » Here,

[0:19] » Randy Sprag here, and Conrad Hebrron

[0:22] » Here.

[0:23] » Thank you. In addition to the board

[0:25] members here, we also have the uh acting

[0:29] city attorney Peter Bunchreger and the

[0:32] um and Evan Winkler staff um from the

[0:36] planning department. Uh

[0:39] this evening we have two two requests,

[0:42] two variance requests, and we will hear

[0:45] each one separately. Um, first the the

[0:48] city will present the their case. Then

[0:51] the applicant or his his or her

[0:53] representative will have the opportunity

[0:55] to present their request for the board

[0:56] and to the board and answer questions.

[0:59] Then we will ask for anyone who's either

[1:01] in the audience or online who's in favor

[1:04] of the request to speak and then anyone

[1:07] who is opposed to the application to

[1:09] speak. the board will then close the

[1:12] public session and the and discuss it

[1:16] and make a decision on that variance and

[1:18] then we'll go back to the next variance.

[1:20] These proceedings are recorded. Uh we do

[1:22] ask you to speak clearly and one at a

[1:24] time and you will need to come to the uh

[1:27] to the podium to speak. The uh we will

[1:30] vote on like I said we will vote on your

[1:31] application tonight for a decision.

[1:33] Approval will take four out of the five

[1:36] members approval. Please try not to be

[1:39] redundant or repetitive in your

[1:41] comments.

[1:43] Randy, would you please read the powers

[1:45] relative to variances?

[1:46] » Yes. um when by reason of exceptional

[1:49] narrowness, shallowess or shape of a

[1:52] specific piece of property as of

[1:54] September 20, 1956

[1:57] or by reason of exceptional

[1:59] topographical conditions or other

[2:01] extraordinary exceptional situation or

[2:03] condition of a specific piece of

[2:05] property which condition is not

[2:07] generally prevalent in the neighborhood.

[2:09] The strict application of the area

[2:11] regulations of this zoning code would

[2:15] result in a particular and exceptional

[2:17] practical difficulties to the

[2:19] exceptional and undue hardship upon the

[2:22] owner of such property. The board is

[2:25] hereby empowered to authorize upon

[2:27] appeal relating to such property a

[2:30] variation from such strict application

[2:33] so as to relieve such difficulties or

[2:35] hardships.

[2:36] » Thank you. Would you please read the

[2:37] first read docket 2440 into the record?

[2:45] » Okay. Um docket 2440 is an application

[2:49] made by Michael E. Blae as the architect

[2:52] of record on behalf of the property

[2:54] owner at at 104 C East Cedar Avenue. The

[2:59] property is located within the A47500

[3:02] square foot residence district. And then

[3:05] on the back there's four.

[3:06] » Okay. The applicant is requesting a

[3:08] variance from municipal code section

[3:10] 53.073D

[3:13] in order to build a bedroom suite

[3:15] addition connecting the existing house

[3:17] to the existing detached garage

[3:20] resulting in the primary structure being

[3:22] 6.67 ft from the rear lot line or south

[3:27] property line.

[3:28] » Thank you, Mr. Gruntger.

[3:31] Prior to questioning, I would ask first

[3:33] that um we know exhibits one through

[3:36] eight uh in the packet uh as maybe to

[3:39] take part of the record. I would also

[3:41] ask that exhibit nine be included which

[3:43] is any tough presentation used uh during

[3:46] our question.

[3:47] » Thank you.

[3:48] » Uh and I would call Winkler to testify.

[3:51] » Mr. Winkler, would you please raise your

[3:53] right hand? Do you solemnly swear that

[3:54] the testimony you're about to give is

[3:56] the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

[3:57] but the truth?

[3:58] » I do.

[3:58] » Thank you very much. Please go ahead.

[4:01] » Could you state your name for the

[4:02] record?

[4:03] » Evan Winkler.

[4:04] » And are you employed by the city of

[4:05] Webster Groves?

[4:06] » Yes, I am.

[4:07] » What's your title?

[4:08] » Uh staff planner.

[4:09] » And what are your duties in that

[4:10] position?

[4:11] » Uh to administer and execute the zoning

[4:13] code.

[4:14] » Through your work with the city, are you

[4:15] familiar with uh exhibit uh excuse me,

[4:18] docket number 2440 104 East Cedar

[4:21] Avenue?

[4:22] » Yes.

[4:22] » Is that property within city limits?

[4:24] » It is.

[4:25] » In which zoning district is it located?

[4:26] A4 7500 square foot residence district.

[4:30] » What is the applicant's request in

[4:31] docket number 2440?

[4:33] » Um the applicant is requesting a

[4:34] variance of 18.33

[4:37] uh ft from the required 25 ft rear yard

[4:41] setback.

[4:45] » And just just so we're clear on those

[4:47] numbers, uh what is the proposed setback

[4:50] that's requested in this variant?

[4:51] » The proposed setback will be a 6.67 ft

[4:54] rear yard. Which code sections apply to

[4:57] this request? Uh that's code section

[4:59] 53.073D.

[5:02] Uh dimensional regulations for the rear

[5:03] yard setback.

[5:04] » Can you explain the current conditions

[5:06] of the property?

[5:07] » I can. Uh can I present my

[5:09] » Absolutely.

[5:21] All right. Um so this again as we said

[5:24] this property is located in the A4 7500

[5:27] ft² residence district. Um they're

[5:29] requesting a variance from the rear yard

[5:31] setback requirement. Um in the A4

[5:34] district uh the rear yard setback is

[5:36] established by a percentage uh which is

[5:39] 20% of the depth of the lot. Um this is

[5:43] an unusually shallow lot. So it gives

[5:46] provisions in this section that um the

[5:50] rear yard shall never be less than 25

[5:52] ft. Um so this lot is only 115.79

[5:56] ft in length. Uh 20% of that depth would

[5:59] actually only be a 23.16

[6:02] ft rear yard. Uh but the code requires a

[6:05] 25 ft rear yard.

[6:08] Um for site context uh it's at the

[6:10] corner of Cedar Avenue and South Maple

[6:13] Avenue. Um so it's a corner lot. Um it

[6:16] was it's in our central Webster historic

[6:19] district. Um the primary structure was

[6:21] built in 1925. Uh the lots approximately

[6:25] um 9,000 some change square ft.

[6:29] Um in this image uh the blue squares are

[6:33] the existing primary structure, the

[6:34] twotory framed uh stuckle building um

[6:37] and the existing rear detached garage.

[6:40] Um the green is highlighting where a

[6:43] front yard setback uh would prevent

[6:46] somebody from building an addition onto

[6:48] their house. Um so that leaves

[6:50] essentially the rear portion behind the

[6:53] primary structure as well as some side

[6:55] yard. Um and the architect who prepared

[6:59] these plans, you can see um dashed out

[7:02] where the setback is uh for both the

[7:04] rear and the sideyard.

[7:07] Um, in this image, uh, the pink is where

[7:10] the proposed addition will connect the

[7:13] detached garage with the primary

[7:15] structure. Um, so it is located in the

[7:17] side and rear yard. Um, but because of

[7:20] that, um, it creates one primary

[7:24] structure that would end up having its

[7:26] closest, um, distance from the structure

[7:30] to the rear yard, uh, being that circle

[7:33] in purple, uh, which is the 6.6 67 ft um

[7:37] rear yard.

[7:41] Um again, these are just some images um

[7:44] to see the context of what they're

[7:46] proposing. Um essentially, it's a a new

[7:48] suite um with a primary bedroom as well

[7:51] as the restrooms

[7:53] um adjacent to the garage and then

[7:56] connecting um to the primary structure

[8:00] uh with a new front porch.

[8:05] Uh these are the elevation drawings

[8:06] prepared by the architect. Uh you can

[8:09] see from the street view uh where the

[8:11] addition is going. Um and this is a view

[8:14] from uh Mabel.

[8:19] Are there any questions from the board?

[8:22] » I do have a question.

[8:25] In one of the site diagrams that you

[8:28] just presented, it appears the addition

[8:31] uh ranges in distance from that rear

[8:34] yard set back between I guess at 7.15

[8:38] and 7.14

[8:40] and then it's really the corner of the

[8:42] garage, the existing garage that's at

[8:45] 6.67.

[8:49] That's correct. And so because of the

[8:51] way we review uh primary structures

[8:55] which a primary structure could include

[8:57] an attached garage

[8:59] » Um

[9:00] » The closest point is where we want to if

[9:03] you grant the variance you would want to

[9:05] allow for the variance at the closest

[9:06] point.

[9:07] » Okay. Thank you.

[9:09] » Okay.

[9:10] » Anyone else have any questions for Mr.

[9:12] Winkler?

[9:15] » Nice diagrams. No.

[9:18] So, so the clearance on the side is not

[9:21] an issue.

[9:22] » Correct. It's in the A4 district, a six

[9:24] foot sideyard setback requirement.

[9:26] » That's what I understood.

[9:27] » Yeah.

[9:28] » And the garage, the existing garage is

[9:30] completely out of compliance.

[9:33] » Um,

[9:34] » Or does that fall in accessory building

[9:37] » Compliant with

[9:38] » As a detached garage? I believe it is in

[9:40] compliance. It would only need a 5ft

[9:43] side yard and a rear yard.

[9:45] » Yeah, that's right. Okay. So, as it

[9:47] stands, it's it's compliant because it's

[9:50] a freestanding garage. So, when the

[9:52] minute it's attached, it becomes

[9:54] » A different thing.

[9:56] » Yeah.

[9:56] » And I struggled with that, too.

[9:59] » It's no longer an accessory.

[10:01] » It's no longer a detached garage.

[10:03] » Okay.

[10:04] » Any other questions for for Mr. Winkler?

[10:07] » Neat.

[10:08] » Who's here in favor? Who's here

[10:10] representing uh docket 2440?

[10:14] I believe we have Michael Blae online.

[10:17] » Okay.

[10:17] » Oh.

[10:19] » Um, Mr. Blaze, can you hear us?

[10:22] » Yes. Can you hear me?

[10:24] » Hello? Can you hear me?

[10:26] » Raised

[10:29] » Right.

[10:29] » Hold on a second.

[10:30] » Unmuted him, right?

[10:31] » Yes, he's shown as unmuted. Michael, are

[10:33] you with us?

[10:35] » Yes, I am.

[10:40] » He has permissions to talk. I can

[10:44] » Um

[10:46] » Please.

[10:48] » Okay. Well, Alex, you want to

[10:50] » Can you hear me now

[10:51] » For now?

[10:52] » Anybody hear me?

[10:52] » Please raise your right hand. Do you

[10:54] solemnly swear that the testimony you're

[10:56] about to give is the truth, the whole

[10:57] truth, and nothing but the truth?

[10:58] » Yes.

[10:59] » And and please state your full name.

[11:00] » Uh Alexander Blaze.

[11:02] » Okay. Okay.

[11:06] Please go ahead.

[11:07] Um, as you can see, uh, you've done a

[11:10] pretty good job of describing the

[11:12] current, uh, structure as well as the

[11:15] detail. Uh, our client would like to

[11:19] build a new, uh, bedroom suite in order

[11:22] to age in place and save her home.

[11:27] Um, and this would allow her to do so.

[11:31] Uh,

[11:32] clearly without, uh, this uh, project

[11:37] without this variance. There is not

[11:40] really any way to fit a new sweet on.

[11:47] » I assume when you say age in place, she

[11:49] wants the suite on the first floor,

[11:51] right?

[11:55] » Uh what's the what's the particular

[11:57] hardship

[12:01] that's related to the land?

[12:09] Um so

[12:12] uh there's uh you can see the existing

[12:15] concrete driveway and such. Uh we aren't

[12:18] allowed to build

[12:20] uh really anywhere further uh towards

[12:24] the bolt front yard with our uh front.

[12:28] Um and

[12:36] So crazy.

[12:38] » And this is the this is the only place

[12:40] on the lot that you see as a reasonable

[12:42] place to build.

[12:44] » Lot the lot depth being what it is,

[12:46] » Right? The lot depth and

[12:48] » Width.

[12:49] » It's a right

[12:50] » Very small lot. Um

[12:52] » Well, it's not a very it's not a very

[12:54] small lot in the A4.

[12:57] » Take it take it from somebody who lives

[12:58] in the A4. Not a very small a small

[13:00] small lot in the A4 but

[13:03] » Not not a lot of room to move.

[13:05] » But not a lot of room to move.

[13:06] » Right.

[13:07] » And and your the plans proposed to save

[13:09] the tree.

[13:11] » Uh I believe so. Yes.

[13:17] » No, it does not. Not save.

[13:30] Right.

[13:31] » Can you hear me?

[13:33] » Any other questions for Mr. Blaze?

[13:38] » No.

[13:41] » Okay.

[13:42] » Can anyone hear me?

[13:43] » Down. Is there anyone in the audience

[13:45] » Or online in favor of DOIT 2440

[13:50] who would like to speak?

[13:52] Come on up.

[14:00] Please raise your right hand. Do you

[14:02] solemnly swear that the testimony you're

[14:04] about to give is the truth, the whole

[14:05] truth, and nothing but the truth?

[14:07] » Thank you very much. Please state your

[14:08] name and then go ahead.

[14:10] » Whoever

[14:16] that can't be heard.

[14:19] » Oh, hello. Um,

[14:23] so, um,

[14:25] this idea, so I have lived there 26

[14:28] years.

[14:28] » So, you have there a long time.

[14:29] » I've lived there a long time. And I have

[14:32] loved this house. Uh, when I bought the

[14:35] house, I um did kind of what everybody

[14:38] does. I put in the new kitchen. I

[14:40] remodeled the bathroom. And I added a

[14:43] little uh powder room on the first

[14:45] floor. It has worked incredibly well. I

[14:47] love the neighborhood. I love everything

[14:49] about this. Um, the aging in place is a

[14:53] bit of a challenge here because the

[14:55] there's the bedrooms are on the top

[14:56] floor, the laundry is in the basement

[14:59] and I started to look around to move and

[15:02] I thought my heart doesn't want to move

[15:03] but the practicality is I probably

[15:06] should move because at some point I am

[15:08] just not going to want to do three

[15:10] floors here. And um, this idea came

[15:14] about last year. I contacted Mike. I had

[15:17] met him years and years ago and um kind

[15:20] of said what's possible and so that's

[15:23] how this plan came about. Um

[15:28] » In I think I have to lose the tree. I

[15:31] want to be honest about that because I

[15:33] if if the porch does happen, I will have

[15:37] no patio whatsoever. Um, another

[15:40] possibility is to maybe reconfigure it

[15:43] so that there's not a porch and then I

[15:46] could still have a bit of a patio. I'd

[15:48] like to still have some outdoor space to

[15:50] sit at. Um, and so that's just something

[15:53] that we would have to work out. Um, I I

[15:58] hope this can work. I think it can look

[16:00] beautiful and like it could have been

[16:01] there. I know the garage is the

[16:04] challenge because it's just a challenge.

[16:07] Um, but um, I I I think it would be

[16:12] beautiful and I think they would do a

[16:13] great job. So, that's what I'd like to

[16:16] say. Any questions for me beyond the

[16:19] fact that I've lived there 20? Well, I I

[16:21] moved in the year of 911, so that's

[16:23] exactly uh I'm on my anniversary.

[16:27] » So, um, you're not changing the garage

[16:30] at this point in time, right?

[16:32] » No,

[16:32] » Just attaching it to it. Any

[16:36] questions for

[16:37] » And it's just to clarify it's not that

[16:41] you're removing the tree. We're not

[16:43] promising that the tree will survive or

[16:45] that it can be built the addition

[16:48] without removing the tree.

[16:52] » I I'll point out we could talk about the

[16:54] tree. The tree is not part of the

[16:56] considerations here unless you're you're

[16:57] considering whether that's a hardship on

[16:59] the land. Uh which I suppose you could

[17:01] be. Um we are

[17:02] » Speak for the tree. I well Yeah,

[17:04] » There is a there is another commission

[17:06] that speaks for the trees. I'd urge you

[17:08] to talk to that commission.

[17:11] » Okay.

[17:12] » Well said. Well said.

[17:14] » And this will have to go to the

[17:17] architectural review board as well, the

[17:18] design and all this.

[17:22] Any other questions for Miss Weber?

[17:24] » And this would then also give you indoor

[17:26] access from the garage

[17:29] » Or would it not? I can't tell from the

[17:31] plan. So you

[17:32] » Well, she's showing it. They're showing

[17:33] an access onto the new porch, but not

[17:35] necessarily the house.

[17:37] » No, I see. I still have to step out of

[17:39] the garage door. Correct. You are

[17:41] correct. Okay.

[17:42] » Right. It is not like a pass. It's not

[17:45] uh coming in the back door from the

[17:47] garage.

[17:47] » Okay.

[17:48] » I'm not sure if that's relevant, but I

[17:50] was trying to understand the plan.

[17:51] » No, I understand.

[17:54] » I think you had another question. You

[17:56] looked at me. No. No. Okay. All right.

[17:58] » Have you had any discuss? I'm good. No

[18:01] question. Have you had any discussion

[18:02] with neighbors?

[18:03] » Well, I have. I've I've talked to the

[18:06] neighbor to the east um because um they

[18:12] and I have talked quite a bit about

[18:15] aging in place. And so, uh when the

[18:18] property was um

[18:21] uh what's the word I want? Uh surveyed

[18:24] and the stake went into the ground,

[18:26] they're like, "Well, I guess we finally

[18:27] know what our property line is." because

[18:29] it was always fuzzy on that side. And I

[18:32] said, "This is my plan." They had

[18:34] received a letter from you and um I

[18:37] said, "I this is roughly what the plan

[18:40] would be. I haven't walked them through

[18:42] it like this is here." And um I said,

[18:46] you know, and they said, "It sounds

[18:48] good." And that's kind of they were

[18:50] going to come to the meeting in August,

[18:51] but I had to cancel the meeting in

[18:53] August for attending because of a um

[18:57] another priority, meaning taking care of

[18:59] somebody very ill. Um the neighbors to

[19:02] the south I talked to um gosh, three

[19:07] months ago, and I said, "I'm kind of

[19:08] thinking about doing this." And um she

[19:12] said, "That sounds great because then

[19:14] you can stay as our neighbor." But I

[19:17] nobody in in this case has actually seen

[19:20] this, you know, to I I haven't asked for

[19:24] their approval, but I have discussed the

[19:26] fact that I'd like to do this and um it

[19:29] s I figured if they're really going to

[19:31] object, they would be here.

[19:32] » No.

[19:36] » Anything else? Any other questions?

[19:39] » Yeah,

[19:39] » I don't believe so. You Thanks as well.

[19:42] Is there anyone online who'd like to

[19:44] speak or else in the audience who'd like

[19:47] to speak in favor of docket 2240?

[19:50] » We do have a message uh from Michael

[19:52] Blae. His audio isn't working, but he

[19:54] has provided us with a chat, but so I

[19:55] will add that to the record where it

[19:57] says, "Our hardship is the location of

[19:58] the house on the corner lot with double

[20:00] frontage and no options for addition uh

[20:03] other than towards the garage. Uh the

[20:06] house has not been added to since its

[20:08] construction in 1925."

[20:09] » Thank you very much. Um, thank you very

[20:11] much. Mr. Blaze, do you want to speak in

[20:14] favor? Okay, come on up.

[20:20] Would you please raise your right hand?

[20:22] Do you solemnly swear that the testimony

[20:23] you're about to give is the truth, the

[20:25] whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[20:27] » Yes.

[20:27] » And then please state your name and then

[20:29] go ahead.

[20:29] » My name is Deborah Carpenter, and I'm

[20:32] the neighbor to the west across the

[20:34] street. Directly across the street.

[20:36] » So that would be across um South Maple.

[20:39] South Maple, right?

[20:40] » Yeah.

[20:41] » Go ahead.

[20:42] » And I'm in favor of this because I think

[20:44] it's a wonderful plan. I think it'd be a

[20:46] beautiful addition. Would really fit in

[20:47] on the street. Um I we also were looking

[20:51] at ways to stay in our house. It's kind

[20:55] of a common theme on the block. And um

[20:58] I'm very much in favor of the plan,

[21:00] especially with the the way it's

[21:03] designed so that you can have the porch

[21:05] and connect the pieces. I think it'll

[21:07] look even better than it does now. I did

[21:10] have one question and that's just about

[21:13] traffic on South Maple with construction

[21:16] and I don't know if this is the right

[21:18] place to ask that or not, but um we are

[21:22] also the neighbor of uh the house at 131

[21:27] South Maple, which is a large very large

[21:29] house that had a very large construction

[21:31] project for over a year, closer to two

[21:34] years. and we were the next door

[21:36] neighbors um north of them and at

[21:39] sometimes we had as many as 17

[21:42] construction

[21:43] uh vehicles on the street and the Monday

[21:46] club is also on our street and sometimes

[21:49] you just absolutely can't get through.

[21:51] So it's just a question about what do we

[21:54] do?

[21:54] » Mr. Winkley, can you address that?

[21:57] » Um I don't know the regulations for

[22:00] public rightway off the top of my head.

[22:01] I've assured um her that I'll be looking

[22:04] into it and I can follow up. We've got

[22:05] her um contact information.

[22:07] » Yeah, that'd be great. I think it's a

[22:10] really nice addition.

[22:12] » Thank you.

[22:15] » Anyone else who'd like to speak in favor

[22:17] of docket 2440?

[22:21] Is there anyone in the audience or

[22:23] online who would like to speak in

[22:25] opposition or with concern regarding

[22:27] docket 2440?

[22:31] No one else is online.

[22:34] » Hearing none and seeing none, um we'll

[22:37] close

[22:38] the close this um close the open

[22:42] discussion and move to to board

[22:44] discussion. Can we have a motion

[22:46] regarding docket 22 2440 so we can start

[22:50] the discussion?

[22:51] » A motion that we approve the variance

[22:53] request.

[22:54] » Second.

[22:56] So

[22:58] » Well I you know uh the lot dimensions

[23:02] are a limiting factor to where one can

[23:04] create a project like this. I I think

[23:07] that's pretty clear. Um, I think the

[23:10] planning that has been done to date does

[23:13] uh really honor uh this this this h your

[23:16] house is one of my favorite houses by

[23:18] the way that and that whole corner and

[23:21] and I think the way that addition has

[23:23] been thought about is is really smart

[23:25] and elegant and uh um honors what's

[23:28] there and yes I speak for the trees but

[23:31] the way it sits back I think is is uh

[23:35] meets the intent of good urban design

[23:40] » In question.

[23:42] Not necessarily the design at all, but

[23:45] the precedence of

[23:49] six feet from the back of a property

[23:50] line is very close and you're making a

[23:54] full house.

[23:56] Just because we like this one doesn't

[23:58] necessarily mean that

[24:01] we can I'm just conf I'm concerned about

[24:03] the future of

[24:06] um

[24:06] » The precedent we may be setting

[24:08] » Correct

[24:09] » But this the sign setback is actually

[24:12] permitted

[24:14] » With the

[24:16] » The garage

[24:17] » With the detached garage. Yes. But when

[24:20] it's attached to the house

[24:22] it makes it the primary structure.

[24:24] » Right. I thought you were talking about

[24:26] the sidey art setback, not the rear.

[24:27] » No, no, the rear set. I get the whole

[24:31] idea that we have a lot. It's a corner

[24:34] lot. It's um but we have those rules in

[24:38] place to create what Gluster looks like.

[24:42] And I was just a little hesitant to

[24:49] mess with it.

[24:53] I think the way this sits back

[24:56] uh has minimal impact. And when when you

[25:01] think about extending the wall, the

[25:04] elevation of the garage, we're really

[25:06] only talking about extending it u 10 ft.

[25:09] » 11 ft almost 11 ft.

[25:10] » You know, one one half less than one

[25:13] half the length of the existing building

[25:16] in a in a spot where it really isn't

[25:18] going to be visible.

[25:24] I would point out that they do have a um

[25:28] 39 foot setback from um from East Cedar

[25:32] which is sign which is larger than

[25:36] normally

[25:37] » Uh would be would be established. Um so

[25:41] in partially part of the issue is the

[25:44] placement of the house as far back from

[25:46] the cedar as it is

[25:48] » Right which I also would suggest is a

[25:51] hardship to some extent in the sense

[25:53] that the house is so far back from the

[25:55] front relative to its position to the

[25:57] back and that's can't be changed. I mean

[26:00] you're not going to tear down the house

[26:01] and move it. So to me to some extent I

[26:03] think that mitigates

[26:06] some some of the concerns I had and I

[26:07] share your concern but I I think this to

[26:10] some extent mitigates that because of

[26:12] the position of the house on the lot

[26:14] itself so far back relative to the size

[26:18] of the lot that there not a lot of

[26:19] options and I appreciate the fact that

[26:21] design doesn't raise this above the

[26:23] level of the garage. This is basically

[26:25] at the same level. So, it's not a

[26:28] two-story addition back there going,

[26:30] "Wait, it's not that." It's it's sort of

[26:32] a it sort of joins the existing property

[26:35] » And and it receds, you know, they they

[26:38] could build this addition right up to

[26:40] that side. I guess it's sideyard

[26:43] setback. Correct, Evan? and and right

[26:46] » The the new being in the same plane with

[26:49] this old elegant cottage it it would be

[26:53] obnoxious brushing it back I think helps

[26:56] give the primary structure honors it u

[27:00] historically in terms of what it's been

[27:02] and its charm and character so um I

[27:05] think in that regard

[27:07] » It's it's

[27:09] all

[27:09] » It's having a spirited conversation the

[27:12] the question is what's the hardship and

[27:13] I And and that's really the key and I

[27:16] think the key to me the hardship is the

[27:18] first of all the size a lot but also the

[27:20] fact that it is the house it's the

[27:22] primary structure is so far back that

[27:25] there's not a lot of options that you

[27:26] have other than to go with sort of the

[27:29] existing plan that they have.

[27:30] » I I think Mr. Blaze said it well. It's a

[27:32] corner lot.

[27:34] » A lot of real estate is taken from it

[27:37] with the two large setbacks.

[27:40] » So it limits your options.

[27:43] any questions or any comments?

[27:45] » No. Um I kind of agree with uh his

[27:48] comments. Um I also think the fact that

[27:50] there's the existing garage there and

[27:52] it's uh and there already there's now a

[27:55] joining structure makes it

[27:58] » And and Evan, you did say this is in a

[28:01] historic district. So the standards that

[28:03] the architectural review board will use

[28:05] are slightly different than

[28:07] » Right

[28:08] » Not if it was something that was not in

[28:10] a historic district or an historic

[28:13] district. Correct?

[28:16] » Does anyone

[28:18] » Does anyone have any other questions or

[28:21] comments uh before we um call for the

[28:24] vote?

[28:28] All in favor of docket 2440, please say

[28:32] I.

[28:32] » I.

[28:33] » All opposed.

[28:35] » I.

[28:36] » Um

[28:38] Randy, would you please pull the

[28:39] » I will.

[28:40] » Um Debbie Sberg.

[28:43] » Uh John Bur.

[28:44] » I.

[28:45] » Jennifer Gates.

[28:46] » No.

[28:46] » Uh Randy Sprag. I uh Conrad Hebrron.

[28:50] » Hi.

[28:50] » Okay. So, your variance has been

[28:52] approved. Please see city staff during

[28:55] regular business hours for your next

[28:58] steps. Thank you very much.

[29:01] » Um

[29:03] » Randy, would you please read docket

[29:05] 2441?

[29:08] » Better one than I am

[29:10] » Into um

[29:11] » Into the record

[29:12] » Here. Uh docket 2441, an application

[29:15] being made by Mary J. Dietrich, property

[29:18] owner of 21 West Swan Avenue. The

[29:21] property is located within the A2

[29:24] 15,000q ft residence district. The

[29:27] applicant is requesting a variance from

[29:29] municipal code sections 53.058F,

[29:34] 53.058J,

[29:37] and 53.058N

[29:40] in order to build a detached garage 54T.

[29:46] 50.

[29:48] What is that?

[29:50] It's 54 feet 6 and 3/4 or

[29:53] » Oh, 54t 6 and 3/4 in feet. Okay,

[29:58] whatever. From the front lot line, 13 ft

[30:01] tall without complying with the minimum

[30:03] sideyard setback requirements of the

[30:05] district as applied to the primary

[30:07] structure and 4 feet from the side lot

[30:10] or west property line.

[30:12] » Thank you.

[30:13] » Sorry,

[30:13] » Mr. Brigger. Uh before uh calling

[30:16] witnesses, I would ask that the eight

[30:18] exhibits included in your packet there

[30:20] are made part of the record and then in

[30:21] exhibit nine, which is any powerpoint

[30:23] used during uh the present during the

[30:25] testimony, also be included as part of

[30:27] the record.

[30:28] » Thank you.

[30:28] » Uh we would have Mr. Winkler testify who

[30:30] I believe is already sworn.

[30:31] » Yes.

[30:31] » Could you please state your name for the

[30:32] record?

[30:33] » Uh Evan Winkler.

[30:34] » Are you employed by the city of Webster

[30:35] Groves?

[30:35] » Yes, I am.

[30:36] » In what capacity?

[30:37] » Uh staff planner.

[30:38] » And what are your duties in that

[30:39] position?

[30:39] » To administer and execute the zoning

[30:41] regulations. Through your work with the

[30:42] city, are you familiar with 21 West Swan

[30:45] Avenue?

[30:46] » Yes, I am.

[30:46] » Is that property located within the city

[30:48] of Webster Groves?

[30:49] » Yes, it is.

[30:50] » In which zoning district?

[30:51] » It's in the A2 15,000 ft residence

[30:54] district.

[30:55] » What is the applicant's request in

[30:56] docket number 2441?

[30:58] » Um, so the applicant is requesting a

[31:00] variance of 5t 5 and 5/8 inch from the

[31:04] required 60 ft um distance to the front

[31:09] lot line. Uh they're requesting one foot

[31:12] from the uh required 5-ft sideyard

[31:15] setback and they're requesting one foot

[31:18] from the 12T height requirement

[31:22] um without meeting the primary structure

[31:25] setbacks. Um so that ends up being a 54t

[31:30] 6 and 3/4 in front yard setback, a 4ft

[31:33] sideyard setback, and a 13t um tall

[31:36] building.

[31:37] » All right. If just so we can make sure

[31:38] we're clear on these numbers, is there

[31:40] is that a variance from the front line

[31:43] setback?

[31:44] » It is.

[31:45] » And what is the required front line

[31:46] setback?

[31:47] » 60 ft.

[31:48] » Okay. Is that a variance from the uh

[31:50] minimum sideyard setback?

[31:51] » It is.

[31:52] » What is the required minimum uh sideyard

[31:54] setback?

[31:55] » 5T.

[31:55] » Okay. And and what again? What is the

[31:57] request there?

[31:58] » Uh one foot.

[32:00] » So it's 4T a 4 foot variance, right?

[32:03] Okay. And and the setback in the front

[32:05] is how big a variance

[32:07] » It is 5' 5 and 5/4 inch or use am I

[32:12] supposed to say it 54t 6 and 3/4.

[32:15] » So so the variance is the difference

[32:17] between what the what the the setback

[32:19] requirement is and what is being

[32:20] requested.

[32:21] » So we're asking for a variance in the

[32:23] code of of your right 5T uh five and 5/8

[32:27] in. Right. Right. And then from the

[32:29] sideyard setback, the request is a

[32:31] threefoot variance.

[32:33] » Um,

[32:34] » Four.

[32:34] » So they're going to be at four. The

[32:36] requirement is 5T. So a 1 foot

[32:38] variation.

[32:39] » Understood. And then

[32:41] » Are there other are there any other

[32:42] requests made part of this variance?

[32:44] » So they're asking for 1 foot of height

[32:49] without meeting primary structure

[32:51] setbacks, which would be a 10-ft

[32:53] sideyard setback.

[32:56] » Okay. Let's let's cover that. Yeah. What

[32:58] is the maximum height?

[32:59] » What is the maximum height by the code?

[33:01] » So, the code will allow for a 12T

[33:03] detached structure if it meets 5 yard

[33:07] setback requirements.

[33:08] » Okay. So, it's not meeting the 5yard

[33:09] setback requirements. So, it it would be

[33:11] met it would be capped at 12 feet.

[33:13] Excuse me. What's it capped if it

[33:14] doesn't meet the set the setback?

[33:16] » So, it can go up to as tall as the ridge

[33:19] line of the primary structure, but you

[33:21] have to meet uh primary structure

[33:24] setbacks. So, because they're proposing

[33:26] 13 feet, they would have to set that at

[33:30] 10 feet away from the sideyard.

[33:32] » Yes.

[33:33] » The height of the garage is the issue

[33:37] for the

[33:39] for for that is is part of the issue,

[33:42] not just the s not really the size. It's

[33:45] not that the garage is too big and it's

[33:47] kicking us. It's that it's too tall.

[33:50] » Correct. I mean,

[33:51] » Three. So, it's partly the way the

[33:52] zoning ordinance is written where it

[33:55] ties in another code section

[33:59] to provide for the allowances.

[34:02] » In this instance though, they'd be

[34:04] violating if they were building a 12ft

[34:06] garage, they'd be violating no matter

[34:08] what the sideyard setback because they

[34:09] weren't 4 feet.

[34:11] » But they're also asking for a 13t tall

[34:14] so they can have the appropriate height.

[34:17] Um, but in doing a 13ft tall garage, you

[34:20] would need a 10-ft sideyard setback,

[34:23] » Right? But if so, if it was it was 12

[34:25] feet, they'd only need the five yard

[34:27] setback.

[34:28] » Correct.

[34:28] » Okay. Okay.

[34:29] » How

[34:31] is it time?

[34:32] » No, not we're not not quite there yet. I

[34:34] We're just for clarification on the

[34:35] variances. Yes. I And I this is what I

[34:38] want to make sure because what what it

[34:39] sounds like to me is that there if if

[34:41] they have a 13oot structure and correct

[34:44] me if I'm wrong. If it's a 13oot

[34:45] structure, it requires a 10-ft setback.

[34:47] Yes, they're asking for a one foot

[34:49] setback.

[34:50] » No, they're asking for a four foot set.

[34:52] » They're asking So, we're we're looking

[34:53] for a six-foot variance as as the

[34:55] building stands as the building is is

[34:57] set proposed to stand.

[34:59] » I see. Yes, you Yes, it Yes.

[35:03] » On the height.

[35:04] » Yeah.

[35:05] » Well, it's the whole thing. The height

[35:08] of the garage

[35:10] and they're asking for it to be 4 feet

[35:13] when it would

[35:15] what it would always be instead of

[35:17] » Because of the height

[35:18] » 5

[35:21] » If it was 12.

[35:22] » All right. So, I'm going to try to

[35:24] clarify this because we we obviously

[35:25] we've got a lot of numbers floating

[35:27] around. So, just I'm I'm going to state

[35:29] it. You correct me if I'm wrong, but

[35:30] we're looking they're looking for a a 5

[35:32] foot uh excuse me, 5 foot, 5 in, and and

[35:36] uh 5/8 of an inch setback uh as as part

[35:40] of the front yard setback. Correct.

[35:42] That's the variance request. Yes.

[35:44] » And then if we're talking about a a

[35:46] proposed 13t tall structure, they

[35:49] require a 10-ft setback. Correct?

[35:51] » Yes.

[35:51] » They're asking for a 4ft setback.

[35:53] Correct. So if we're trying to narrow

[35:55] this down to two variances, that second

[35:57] variance would be a six-foot variance

[35:59] request.

[35:59] » Yes.

[36:00] » Okay.

[36:01] » All right. Which code sections apply to

[36:02] these requests?

[36:04] » Um this is code section 53.058,

[36:07] which are the development standards for

[36:09] accessory structures. Um and the sublet

[36:11] letters are uh F, J, and N.

[36:16] » Can you describe the current condition

[36:18] of the property?

[36:19] » Um the current Yes, I have a

[36:21] presentation um which I'll share here.

[36:28] All right. Again, this is in our A2

[36:30] 15,000 square foot resident district. Um

[36:34] the code sections that are applicable

[36:36] are the front yard setback um distance

[36:38] from the front lot line. Um the height

[36:41] of a detached accessory structure which

[36:43] affects the sideyard requirements. Um

[36:46] and then accessory buildings are

[36:48] required to be at least 5 foot sideyard

[36:51] but if increased height um then it's an

[36:54] increased sideyard setback. Um you can

[36:57] see um from this next slide um the shape

[37:02] of the lot is a little bit unusual in

[37:04] that there's a bit of a jog um and it

[37:08] then narrows towards the rear of the

[37:09] parcel. Uh it's also located in the

[37:12] central Webster historic district. Um it

[37:16] is approximately 11,000 almost 12,000

[37:19] square foot uh lot. Um, there is an

[37:22] existing detached uh garage that was um

[37:28] the history on its construction is a

[37:30] little bit fuzzy, but probably was built

[37:32] not as a garage um and then converted at

[37:35] some point in history. Uh but it sits at

[37:39] 12 feet wide or 12x 23 feet and some

[37:43] change. Um,

[37:47] in this next diagram you can see this is

[37:49] the new proposed garage which will be a

[37:52] 16 by 24 ft uh which will give her uh

[37:55] 384 ft. Um, I do mention some trees in

[37:59] this one, uh, just because, um, if they

[38:03] were to put a detached garage in the

[38:05] rear of the structure, um, they would be

[38:08] required to cut down one, possibly two

[38:11] trees. Um, and then

[38:14] » I do know part of the request for its

[38:17] distance to the front lot line is that

[38:19] uh there's a desire to prever uh

[38:21] preserve a magnolia tree uh that sits

[38:24] behind the lot. Um the the brown arrow

[38:28] uh is showing that jog in the shape of

[38:30] the parcel. Um I've highlighted

[38:33] essentially the sideyard setback in the

[38:35] purple circle which would be they're

[38:37] requesting a 4ft sideyard setback. Um

[38:40] and then the distance again to the front

[38:42] lot line is 54t 6 and 3/4 8 in.

[38:49] Um these are just some elevations of the

[38:51] proposed garage. Um,

[38:54] again, it'll be 13 feet tall, uh, 54

[38:57] feet 6 and 3/4 inch or sorry, yeah,

[39:00] feet, uh, from the front lot line, uh, a

[39:03] 4ft sideyard set back. Uh, the allowance

[39:05] is a 12t tall. Um,

[39:09] if you're going to have a 5ft yard

[39:10] setback, if it's taller than that, it'd

[39:12] be 12 feet side or 10 foot sideyard

[39:14] setback. Uh, it has to be 60 feet from

[39:16] the front lot line. Um and again 5 ft or

[39:20] the 10 ft.

[39:23] Sorry that was such a complicated one.

[39:26] Uh but are there any questions at this

[39:28] point from the board members?

[39:30] » The uh the front yard setback is

[39:32] established by the adjacent property,

[39:34] right? 60 foot is more than

[39:38] » Um so not for primary structures. it's

[39:40] established uh by the um how it was

[39:46] originally platted or there's some

[39:48] alternatives

[39:50] » Like adjacent parcels

[39:53] um and so forth. However, accessory

[39:56] structures, detached accessory

[39:58] structures have that specific call out

[40:00] that it has to be at least 60 ft from

[40:03] the front lot line or in the rear yard.

[40:06] So,

[40:08] » Okay. Okay. So that's that's part of the

[40:10] code. All right.

[40:11] » Yes.

[40:13] » If the height goes from 12 to 13,

[40:18] is the variance

[40:20] is it a different set of requirements

[40:22] variance at that point? Is it is there

[40:24] almost like two decision points here

[40:26] where it's like one is the height and

[40:28] then once we decide on the height then

[40:30] it's a different variance number.

[40:34] » Well, and so that's Peter and I were

[40:36] kind of talking here. I may have

[40:37] complicated it by

[40:40] I thought maybe a request would be

[40:41] needed for a variance in height. Um, but

[40:45] you're allowed to have a 13-ft tall

[40:47] garage. It's just it has to meet primary

[40:50] sideyard setbacks. So really what the

[40:52] request is here is a request for the

[40:54] sideyard setback of 4T as opposed to 10

[40:57] ft and then a request of the front yard

[41:01] um not meeting the 60 ft but rather that

[41:04] 54T and uh 6 and 3/4 or 38 uh inch

[41:10] » To protect the magnolia.

[41:13] » Well, they'll be able to talk to you

[41:14] more about it, but

[41:15] » But that's a different commit

[41:16] » Essentially.

[41:16] » No, no, no. What I'm telling you is part

[41:18] of if it's part of the property and

[41:19] you're considering it for the purposes

[41:20] of of a hardship. Yeah, you can you can

[41:23] consider that. But we're not going to go

[41:26] about every tree on the property and see

[41:27] if we're saving it.

[41:34] » Spoken to someone who's lots of trees in

[41:35] their yard is not looking forward to

[41:37] fall. Okay.

[41:40] » Well,

[41:41] » Do does anyone have do we have any other

[41:43] questions for Mr. Way?

[41:44] » Okay. I have a question.

[41:46] » Yes. Go ahead. So, if it went if the

[41:50] height

[41:52] just play along with me for a second. If

[41:53] the height goes down to 12,

[41:57] does that change the the variance at all

[42:02] for the sideyard? It changes the wording

[42:04] of it, but you still need the variance

[42:05] for the sideyard.

[42:06] » It would change the wording of the

[42:10] sideyard and how much of a variance

[42:13] they're getting. Okay, that's

[42:14] » It would be a one foot variance at that

[42:16] point.

[42:16] » Exactly. Yeah.

[42:16] » Okay, I'm with you now. Thank you.

[42:18] » Uh and so I do have a question. I know

[42:20] we've got some drawings here. I'm I'm

[42:22] looking at the proposed garage. Is it It

[42:25] looks like it extends in front of the

[42:27] the front uh of the house. Is that

[42:30] accurate? It would that the garage would

[42:32] actually be in front of the house?

[42:33] » Yeah.

[42:34] » But not by very much, right?

[42:42] Okay.

[42:44] We've dealt with that before as a board.

[42:46] Can

[42:46] » Can we go back to the site plan?

[42:56] » This one? Yeah,

[42:58] that one.

[43:00] So yeah, it's slightly ahead of the main

[43:02] body of the house, but behind much of

[43:05] the porch is that a

[43:07] » Which isn't the front of the house is

[43:10] the is the line that the M is

[43:12] » Right.

[43:14] » Yeah. I mean, part of me just wondered

[43:18] does it want to push back to a line?

[43:21] » Well, that's that's a question for the

[43:23] » There's

[43:24] right behind.

[43:28] Any other questions for Mr.

[43:30] » Winclair to clarify the exist?

[43:44] » Yeah.

[43:44] » All right. What's the question?

[43:46] » Where does

[43:50] » It's already 55 ft past about front of

[43:55] the home.

[43:57] » Let's see. Yeah, that's the foundry.

[44:00] » It says 55.4

[44:02] on well that 55.4 on the uh the property

[44:07] survey.

[44:11] » So it is kind of almost

[44:14] » Being the current line.

[44:19] » Yeah.

[44:21] So it says on this. All right.

[44:26] I have questions but problem.

[44:28] » Any other questions for Mr. Winkler?

[44:35] » All right, we'll we'll leave Mr. Winkler

[44:37] for now. Who has uh who's

[44:40] » Here representing docket 2441?

[44:44] » Come on up.

[44:48] » Please raise your right hand. Do you

[44:49] solemnly swear that the testimony you're

[44:51] about to give is the truth, the whole

[44:52] truth, and nothing but the truth?

[44:53] » Yes.

[44:54] » Please state your name and then go

[44:55] ahead. I'm officially Marilyn Dietrich.

[44:59] Uh it's it's I'm happy to be here

[45:02] tonight. Uh so I am the owner and the

[45:06] occupant owner since uh 36 years now of

[45:11] this property. What I'd like to mention

[45:14] is this is garage is part two of a

[45:17] four-part process. So, one was the

[45:20] fabulous small edition that was put on

[45:22] two years ago that that picture showing

[45:24] the porta potty. Where did you get that?

[45:27] Anyway,

[45:29] and then the garage. Three is the

[45:32] driveway. And then four will be the

[45:34] fabulous landscaping, the trees.

[45:38] So, this project is to replace an

[45:40] accessory structure that was converted

[45:43] to fit a vehicle at an unknown time with

[45:46] a new detached garage built to modern

[45:49] standards.

[45:52] One thing that's important is the storm

[45:54] water management. Um, you don't have a

[45:56] slide, but I have provided with Evan um

[46:00] that Michael Blaze drawings of when my

[46:03] house was done. I have a lovely flow

[46:06] well in the back on. So from the garage

[46:09] if you go north and jog in the back

[46:12] corner on the northwest corner is where

[46:15] my flow well is. So all that uh

[46:18] rainwater will and gutter will be

[46:20] discharged back to that flow well.

[46:24] I also have a letter from the budding

[46:28] property owners at 166 Southgore.

[46:31] They're the ones with the pool to the

[46:33] west approving the improve approving my

[46:38] improvements to my property.

[46:41] They will have ample room for any

[46:43] maintenance or repairs on their

[46:44] property. So, I had provided a picture

[46:48] um but it shows me standing literally

[46:52] at their garage. There's plenty of room.

[46:54] You can literally touch their uh uh down

[46:58] uh gutter and it's so it's easy. There's

[47:00] no impeding

[47:02] my garage would not impede them at all.

[47:05] Uh demolition has been administratively

[47:07] approved

[47:09] and the previous docket was talking

[47:12] about aging in place. So obviously I'm

[47:14] doing the same thing by uh having the

[47:18] first floor project. I've got the

[47:21] laundry on the first floor, ADA approved

[47:24] bathroom and and uh ground level

[47:28] entrance in the back on well on the side

[47:31] actually. So this garage project will

[47:34] ensure that as I age there will be a

[47:36] functional garage allowing for

[47:39] comfortable ingress, egress and safe

[47:42] indoor parking especially during the

[47:44] inclement St. Louis weather. the

[47:47] walkway. That's where that one foot

[47:50] comes in from. Instead of it being five,

[47:52] if it's four, that gives me that extra

[47:55] foot between my fabulous front porch and

[47:58] the new garage. So, I have that three

[48:01] foot for the trash cans and that walker

[48:05] that I'll probably have someday.

[48:08] And let's see. So, I look forward to

[48:10] Coach House Garages building this

[48:13] wonderful garage. It'll be tasteful. It

[48:16] will enhance the streetscape and match

[48:19] the existing properties architect

[48:23] architecture.

[48:29] » So, this is basically just another

[48:31] onecar garage, correct?

[48:33] » Oh, yes.

[48:35] possibly a little bigger with some some

[48:37] storage and more storage. But um and

[48:40] then is there a reason that the garage

[48:43] is going to be 13t tall rather than the

[48:46] 12 feet tall that the code would you

[48:50] know the the 13 foot tall that requires

[48:53] the larger variance?

[48:55] » May I defer that to to Robert Reed?

[48:58] » Sure. Let's let's get let's give give it

[49:00] a minute and see if there's if anyone

[49:02] else has any other questions for you

[49:03] before we make him come up.

[49:05] » Any other questions for uh

[49:07] » For the owner?

[49:08] » He we're talking about those inches uh

[49:10] that the garage is is drawn to be in

[49:13] front of and this may be another

[49:14] question. Um but uh is it possible to

[49:17] move back five inches,

[49:18] » Right? So that it is in line with or

[49:20] behind the main structure.

[49:23] » I could do five inches. I don't want to

[49:25] do five feet because of my tulip magn

[49:29] which which would put you and I

[49:30] understand that the request is to keep

[49:31] the magnolia alive. My my my question is

[49:34] based on I'm I apologize I'm doing a

[49:35] little bit of research now but we have

[49:37] additional code sections that uh forbid

[49:39] a garage from being built a detached

[49:41] garage from being built in front of a

[49:42] main structure. Um which is not

[49:44] something we're talking about officially

[49:46] yet tonight but it would be need to be

[49:48] something we need to discuss if it's

[49:49] going to prohibit it. Um, if we're just

[49:51] talking about five inches there, is it

[49:52] possible or a couple of inches, is it

[49:54] possible to move it back?

[49:55] » That's doable. If the if the board was

[49:58] was if it was acceptable to the board to

[50:00] give you the the front yard setback, but

[50:02] not but not that five five inches to so

[50:05] that whatever the front yard setback of

[50:08] the garage would be, it would be line up

[50:10] with the existing house. Is that what

[50:11] you're suggesting?

[50:12] » That's what I'm asking. Or at least in

[50:14] line with it or behind it.

[50:16] » Right.

[50:18] » Yes, it's doable. Anyone else have any

[50:20] questions?

[50:21] » That's a great question.

[50:22] » Right.

[50:23] » Okay. Uh why don't you have your

[50:25] contractor or or the person who can

[50:28] answer those questions?

[50:30] » Good evening.

[50:31] » Would you please raise your right hand?

[50:32] » Yes.

[50:32] » Do you solemnly swear that the testimony

[50:34] you're about to give is the truth, the

[50:35] whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

[50:37] » Yes.

[50:37] » And please state your name and then go

[50:39] ahead.

[50:39] » Robert Reeb Jr.

[50:41] » Reeb.

[50:41] » Uh I'm a 74 year old old contractor,

[50:44] retired. I'm a good good friend of

[50:46] Mary's. Uh I'm here to speak about uh I

[50:49] can I know it was confusing when Evan

[50:52] was speaking to you all and I could

[50:54] understand because of my experience how

[50:57] confusing that was. So that being said,

[51:00] I'd like to maybe speak to the hardship

[51:02] first. The situation that's

[51:06] not generally prevalent in the

[51:07] neighborhood is a lot that has a

[51:09] substandard lot size and a sub and an

[51:12] unusual shape. The location of the lot

[51:15] is two lots in a row that are both

[51:18] shaped like that opposing

[51:20] » In a row and they're against the

[51:22] neighbor and they're against the

[51:23] neighbors in the rear too. Uh they're

[51:25] both on swan between Elm and Gore. It

[51:28] appears that when the homes were built

[51:30] over a hundred years ago, the builder

[51:32] probably came down Elm, built the

[51:34] corner, built the corner, figured out

[51:36] what we're going to do with the fillin,

[51:38] and that's how they got divided in this

[51:40] odd shape with that dog leg in there.

[51:43] Um,

[51:52] » Oh, the shaker. It was Well, there they

[51:55] are. See, both of those properties

[51:56] » Oh, yeah.

[51:57] » Are not conducive to having the typical

[52:00] driveway along the side of the house,

[52:02] garage in the rear, because you can't

[52:04] get the driveway on the side of the

[52:07] house. on her house, the one that's

[52:09] highlighted on the right hand side or

[52:12] towards Elm.

[52:15] It's not depicted here because there's

[52:16] no survey on the house next to her, but

[52:18] the house to the east has an addition

[52:24] that was put on many years ago and it's

[52:27] 30 in from property line. So, it's quite

[52:30] close. So, a driveway on the right side

[52:33] is completely impossible.

[52:35] Okay, she's not upset with the

[52:37] encroachment. She loves her neighbor.

[52:39] Okay. And u So that's not even anything

[52:42] that we need to discuss.

[52:44] » You can't fix it.

[52:45] » The other the other aspects of the lot

[52:48] in regarding the setback from the street

[52:50] to all of you. Um

[52:54] the setback being about a 5 in

[52:56] difference from the house and being that

[52:58] the code was 5 foot and being that the

[53:01] house is 5 foot off the code as it would

[53:03] be for a modern structure. I don't know

[53:06] why pushing it back 5 in could satisfy a

[53:09] need of anything to anyone. But if

[53:11] that's what what it takes to agree she's

[53:14] agreeable to that. Uh it ju it seems you

[53:18] know

[53:19] it it doesn't have a great impact on

[53:21] anything negative or positive. So it's

[53:24] okay. Um exceptional to the shape of the

[53:28] piece of property is the property shape

[53:31] has that jog in the rear creating the

[53:33] reduced lot width which doesn't allow

[53:35] for the driveway to be in the rear. Um

[53:38] the 8-ft setback on the sideyard to the

[53:41] neighbor's side is is there, but there's

[53:44] a 30-in encroachment to the property

[53:47] line that would make the driveway very

[53:50] tight getting around her house.

[53:58] taking into account all those facts. Um,

[54:01] and considering that that height was

[54:03] part of the variation, we've got I've

[54:06] discussed setback on the height of the

[54:08] structure. And I'm going to hold this

[54:10] up. This currently is 13 ft from the

[54:14] ground to the ridge. And it's 13 ft

[54:17] because it's 16 ft wide with a 412

[54:21] pitch. And that means every foot of

[54:24] horizontal dimension, the roof goes up 4

[54:27] in. Um, as a contractor or a roofer, as

[54:32] a minimum, we like a 412 pitch because

[54:34] it drains water and it's an easy walk.

[54:38] But if it were too high, and that would

[54:39] have been the sticking point that could

[54:42] be adjusted.

[54:43] The reason she wants the garage is as

[54:46] you spoke, it's just a single garage

[54:48] even still because it's not wide enough

[54:50] for two cars and it never will be. But

[54:53] the current one is not wide enough for

[54:55] one car of a modern car. Uh so the uh

[55:01] the height

[55:03] is is the one issue at 13 ft. uh the

[55:07] garage that it sits next to

[55:10] backs up to it and is probably 3 ft over

[55:15] it and that's recessed into the ground.

[55:19] These garages will sit side by side.

[55:21] That's their garage. This gutter line

[55:24] when you walk up to this garage between

[55:26] the setback of 5 foot and the setback of

[55:29] hers which is at 5 foot now there's the

[55:32] gutter. So it's easy to clean, easy to

[55:35] paint. You wouldn't need an extension c

[55:37] or extension ladder to get up there.

[55:39] There wouldn't be any maintenance issues

[55:41] created by the side setback of one foot

[55:45] variation or var uh variance wouldn't

[55:49] impact that. The neighbor

[55:52] to that side doesn't use that for

[55:55] entertaining or anything. All that would

[55:56] be is a landscaped area uh between two

[55:59] garages. So you'd have garage side

[56:02] facing garage side. Uh there's no public

[56:05] space, no personal private space, no

[56:07] patio space. Uh so if she's granted the

[56:12] one foot side variation

[56:16] and if the 13 height and the step back

[56:18] from the front is okay, the one foot on

[56:21] the side variation

[56:23] improves her accessibility from the

[56:25] front sidewalk or the driveway to get

[56:28] between the house that has that screen

[56:31] porch on it or that porch and and the

[56:34] garage. If we had to have it one foot

[56:38] less than if it was one foot the other

[56:40] way, it's only a two foot 10 inch width

[56:43] to walk through with a trash can or two

[56:45] bags or whatever. So, we're asking that

[56:48] if the 1 ft variance on the side

[56:52] uh setback could be reduced to 4T.

[56:55] There's no house there. There's no

[56:57] living people there. There's a house

[56:59] here, but there's it's a garage and that

[57:01] house has been added on to too. So, the

[57:05] reason she would like that is her

[57:07] addition that Michael Blae put on and

[57:09] she finished and completed last year to

[57:11] the rear has a ground level entrance and

[57:13] is set up for ADA on the first floor and

[57:17] this would get her in.

[57:20] » She's never had her car in the garage.

[57:22] She scrapes ice and she's having hip

[57:24] issues already. So, um have I covered

[57:28] it?

[57:30] But basically, you're saying that though

[57:34] you don't understand why we're asking

[57:36] for the garage to be set back five

[57:38] inches that you don't believe that would

[57:40] be an issue.

[57:41] » Well, the house is already in non- in

[57:43] compliance. That's what I said. We

[57:45] » But but what Mr. Bunreger is saying is

[57:48] that he believes that the code requires

[57:50] that the garage be set back at least as

[57:54] far as the house.

[57:55] » That's fine. The difference is probably

[57:57] five and a half inches or six.

[57:58] » That's right. Nobody gets hurt with five

[58:00] or six inches.

[58:02] » And then and then the issue of the uh

[58:06] » Of the garage height,

[58:09] » The height was determined by the width

[58:11] of the garage and the roof pitch.

[58:14] » And the reason the garage has a 9 foot1

[58:16] wall height or plate to plate is because

[58:20] we have to have room for an operator

[58:22] overhead to open the door. And it's very

[58:25] tight at that. that that's cranked down

[58:27] as low as we can get it.

[58:30] » I'm just curious and maybe this is a

[58:33] question for staff.

[58:34] » Yeah,

[58:35] » If I maybe this is out of order, but in

[58:38] terms of how the zoning code measures

[58:40] the height of buildings, is it really to

[58:42] the ridge line or is it to the midpoint

[58:44] of the roof slope uh in relation to the

[58:47] average grade?

[58:48] » It is the ridge line, the highest point

[58:50] from grade to highest point.

[58:55] got that contract for somebody to

[58:56] rewrite the zoning ordinance yet?

[58:59] » We do actually. They just delivered uh

[59:02] » Diagnostics for us. So staff are working

[59:04] through those right now.

[59:07] » So if the garage were slightly narrower,

[59:10] can you still keep the pitch that you

[59:12] want on the roof with a 12T ridge line?

[59:15] » Yes, sir. You could. Or the garage pitch

[59:17] could be changed.

[59:18] » Right.

[59:19] » Mhm. So you could but if you wanted that

[59:21] pitch real bad if you I think she'd

[59:24] rather have the width

[59:25] » Fair

[59:26] » And and and the width with the one foot

[59:28] variance and we take the root pitch and

[59:30] turn it into a 3 and 12.

[59:32] » Right. And and

[59:34] I defer to you know to a builder into

[59:37] what she needs to get the car and the

[59:39] the vehicle to the width of the garage.

[59:40] I

[59:41] » That's what she needs.

[59:42] » I wouldn't mandate that.

[59:43] » She needs to get out of the car.

[59:44] » Okay. So there's a way to do that to

[59:46] accomplish

[59:47] » Yeah. Okay. I I would rather sacrifice

[59:49] roof pitch over width. That's what I

[59:51] think. Absolutely. Yes. Thank you.

[59:53] Because going to be wide enough for her

[59:56] to get out of the car on the driver's

[59:59] side, walk around the front of the front

[1:00:02] and go out through the man door to get

[1:00:04] into the to the access in the house.

[1:00:06] That's at grade.

[1:00:08] » It is, Miss Alberg, because the garage

[1:00:10] door that you see is 12 foot wide. A

[1:00:13] normal one is nine.

[1:00:14] » Okay. So, she's got ample

[1:00:16] » Space to

[1:00:17] » Yes.

[1:00:21] » I'd like to have that.

[1:00:23] » Anyone else have any questions?

[1:00:25] » I do not.

[1:00:26] » I have a question. All right. Go ahead.

[1:00:27] Oh. Oh, for question for staff or

[1:00:29] » Staff. Yeah. Okay. Um the say this gets

[1:00:33] approved as um does the building

[1:00:36] department look at the um wall

[1:00:40] construction between the two properties

[1:00:42] for fire

[1:00:43] » Fire codes? Right. Because

[1:00:45] » Yeah. I mean, any structure would have

[1:00:47] to meet uh building code requirements.

[1:00:48] » Oh, yeah.

[1:00:49] » Thank you.

[1:00:51] » All right. I don't think we have any

[1:00:52] questions for you.

[1:00:53] » Okay. I don't hear Well, either.

[1:00:56] » Is there Thank you.

[1:00:59] » Else who would like to speak in favor of

[1:01:01] docket 2241.

[1:01:04] Is there anyone online?

[1:01:06] » Nobody's online.

[1:01:07] » No one's online. Is there anyone who'd

[1:01:09] like to speak in opposition or with

[1:01:11] concern for DACA 2441? Hearing

[1:01:17] none. Seeing none, um can we have a a

[1:01:21] we'll close the board discussion and

[1:01:24] move to um move to dis

[1:01:28] close the open discussion and move to

[1:01:30] board discussion. We have a motion

[1:01:32] regarding 2441. So we can start the

[1:01:35] discussion.

[1:01:37] » A motion that we approve the variance

[1:01:40] requests.

[1:01:41] » Second.

[1:01:43] » Good. Okay.

[1:01:44] » So,

[1:01:46] um,

[1:01:49] if we were going to consider this for

[1:01:52] approval, I would like to to amend the

[1:01:58] motion and have the front yard set back

[1:02:04] that we would grant be consistent with

[1:02:06] the house existing house setback

[1:02:09] » Which is in the plans. uh that they're

[1:02:12] actually slightly different in the

[1:02:13] corners, but the closer corner to where

[1:02:15] that garage would be, the setback is

[1:02:18] 55.3 ft.

[1:02:20] » Okay. Which would mean it it'd be a

[1:02:22] request for a variance of of 4.7 feet.

[1:02:29] » 4.7 in four feet and 710.

[1:02:34] » Right. Right. So So rather than doing

[1:02:36] fractions, I'm doing uh the

[1:02:38] » Decimal decimal. Oh, and that's and what

[1:02:40] you're saying is that would then put it

[1:02:41] in line with the front of the house.

[1:02:43] » That is the corner closest has a 55.3

[1:02:47] foot setback.

[1:02:51] » Where'd you get Yeah,

[1:02:55] » I would I would uh amend my motion to do

[1:02:59] that.

[1:03:00] » Okay.

[1:03:01] » Baker of the motion

[1:03:03] once we once we are clear on what that

[1:03:06] front setback is. The maker of the

[1:03:09] motion would like to amend his original

[1:03:12] motion.

[1:03:18] » That's support.

[1:03:29] » This is this is orange.

[1:03:31] » So we're not

[1:03:35] we talk about it was putting it with

[1:03:38] Okay.

[1:03:38] » So, now if you did, so you need a motion

[1:03:41] to amend, by the way, but we can talk

[1:03:43] about that. So, we're looking at uh is

[1:03:45] there a page number up there?

[1:03:47] » Sheet one of the of the um survey, which

[1:03:51] shows that the

[1:03:53] » The corner

[1:03:56] closest to the proposed garage is uh of

[1:03:59] the main structure is 55.3

[1:04:02] feet. Um, and so if that were what the

[1:04:05] board were interested in doing is

[1:04:06] granting a variance of it, then they

[1:04:08] would be allowed to build up to a 55.3.

[1:04:12] » That's what I think we're trying to say

[1:04:14] is that that's what we would want to do.

[1:04:16] » Would it be

[1:04:24] » I sure understand

[1:04:26] » The the property line is not parallel to

[1:04:29] the front of the house. That's why we're

[1:04:31] seeing differences in the setback. Would

[1:04:35] a cleaner motion be to align the

[1:04:38] elevation of the garage to that corner

[1:04:40] of the house

[1:04:43] » As far as the setback goes?

[1:04:44] » Yes.

[1:04:44] » Yeah. Because at that point, you you'd

[1:04:46] put that as the approval of the city is

[1:04:48] you can build up to that line.

[1:04:50] » So, we would up to the corner of the

[1:04:52] house that

[1:04:52] » That's at 55.3.

[1:04:54] » That's at 55.3.

[1:04:57] » Yes. Okay.

[1:04:59] push it back.

[1:05:01] » Is that is that

[1:05:02] » You want to go one more in?

[1:05:04] » Is that adequate? Like that corner set

[1:05:06] back which is which is further back than

[1:05:09] the other side if we move to as long as

[1:05:12] it's uh par or right there or if the

[1:05:16] closest corner that that's out of it

[1:05:18] doesn't need to be because the other

[1:05:19] corner is is uh

[1:05:21] » It is a little

[1:05:23] » The other corner is about four inches

[1:05:26] closer.

[1:05:26] » Yeah. Yeah. So it's just it's a yeah

[1:05:28] four inch difference. Yeah.

[1:05:30] » So I think you want I think you want to

[1:05:32] put it with the closest corner of the

[1:05:34] house and put it say okay then it's not

[1:05:37] exceeded the front of the house.

[1:05:39] » Yeah. I guess it makes it even easier

[1:05:41] because the one that's closest is

[1:05:42] actually further back.

[1:05:44] » Right. Correct. Right.

[1:05:46] » Right.

[1:05:47] » So the ideation

[1:05:51] we were dealing with a lawsuit that

[1:05:52] right now. So anyway.

[1:05:54] » Okay. So, Peter, how should John modify

[1:05:57] his motion?

[1:05:58] » Motion to amend the Before we do that,

[1:06:01] could we have a little more discussion

[1:06:02] because perhaps we might want to amend

[1:06:04] it to talk about the height of the

[1:06:05] structure as well. Perhaps we could do

[1:06:08] it all in one. Um, I would suggest also

[1:06:11] that we that it would it would be much

[1:06:13] easier for me to approve it if we were

[1:06:16] at the 12T to the to the top of the

[1:06:18] thing. I think it can work that way. Um

[1:06:21] it it makes it a little bit I to me it

[1:06:24] makes the side uh set the side set back

[1:06:27] a little more palatable. I I have been

[1:06:29] on the property. I snuck over there the

[1:06:31] other day. That's a real drop off to

[1:06:33] that garage. It's it's you have to see

[1:06:35] it. I mean it's like it's another world

[1:06:37] down there. Um, so the the setback to me

[1:06:42] um is is actually a minor concern to me

[1:06:46] given this the lay of the land and and

[1:06:48] again I think that's part of the

[1:06:49] hardship of the thing is that your

[1:06:51] property drops right off there. It

[1:06:53] there's no way to do a whole lot over

[1:06:55] there and and indeed it's very difficult

[1:06:57] even to walk around that it will be when

[1:07:00] it's the size of this garage. It's going

[1:07:02] to be hard to get between these two

[1:07:03] garages. That's not going to be a common

[1:07:06] path you're going to want to take. It's

[1:07:07] plenty of room for maintenance, but it's

[1:07:09] not going to be the way you want to drag

[1:07:10] your garbage can. Um, so I I think if if

[1:07:14] we could get the heights down and it

[1:07:17] would be much easier for me to

[1:07:18] understand. I think we'd be much closer

[1:07:20] to being in compliance on a couple of

[1:07:22] fronts here that would make the variance

[1:07:25] we're giving

[1:07:27] less

[1:07:29] less of a variance, if you will. Well,

[1:07:30] should we consider the fact should we

[1:07:32] consider the fact of the scope of this

[1:07:34] board the fact that the next door

[1:07:36] neighbor's garage which will be just one

[1:07:38] foot is just one foot setback will be is

[1:07:41] already two feet taller than the

[1:07:43] proposed

[1:07:45] » You know and and does symmetry matter

[1:07:48] there

[1:07:50] » See I don't even I don't think that's

[1:07:52] » Exactly something that we really get

[1:07:54] into

[1:07:55] uh

[1:07:58] I I can see it as a hardship

[1:08:00] But I I think in terms of making

[1:08:03] judgments about um how it might look or

[1:08:06] how that's that's really not what we can

[1:08:08] do

[1:08:09] » And and we're not, you know, they've put

[1:08:10] forward a proposal right now. We're not

[1:08:12] determining anything about what's

[1:08:14] proposed, right? So all we're talking

[1:08:16] about is what the setbacks would be,

[1:08:17] right? They can take that back to the

[1:08:19] drawing board and do whatever they'd

[1:08:20] like as long as it meets the rest of the

[1:08:22] code.

[1:08:24] They could change the whole thing.

[1:08:25] Correct. So Randy, are you suggesting

[1:08:27] that um the

[1:08:30] » That

[1:08:31] » It would be 12

[1:08:32] » That we li if if the height of the

[1:08:34] garage to to the as stated by the city

[1:08:37] as required by the city were at 12T and

[1:08:40] we set this thing back to the front of

[1:08:42] the house the the corn that corner of

[1:08:44] the house then I think those amendments

[1:08:48] I would like to suggest that we make

[1:08:49] those amendments to the original

[1:08:51] proposal. So what you would be asking

[1:08:53] for is instead of what they're asking

[1:08:55] for is a six foot variance, you'd be

[1:08:57] amending that to be to be approving a

[1:08:59] one foot variance.

[1:09:00] » One foot varian down to a one foot

[1:09:02] variance.

[1:09:03] » They could be if they built a 12ft

[1:09:05] structure instead of a 13.

[1:09:06] » It's a one foot variance on the side and

[1:09:09] we're asking it to go back to the uh

[1:09:11] consistent with the corner of the house.

[1:09:15] So, as the maker of the motion,

[1:09:18] » Does that

[1:09:19] » You always look to the left?

[1:09:24] » Are you looking to amend your

[1:09:25] » I'm willing

[1:09:27] close board discussion with close uh

[1:09:29] public discussion. I'm I would be

[1:09:31] willing to amend my motion uh to allow a

[1:09:36] front yard setback that aligns with

[1:09:42] uh the corner of the house that's 55.3

[1:09:46] uh and uh stays within a 12T height

[1:09:51] limit so that the sideyard variance

[1:09:54] request is only one foot or

[1:09:59] Jennifer, do you uh want to second that

[1:10:02] amended motion?

[1:10:03] » I second it.

[1:10:05] » So

[1:10:08] protocol, do we need to do anything with

[1:10:10] the first motion?

[1:10:11] » Nope. We've we've been

[1:10:13] » On the amendment to the to the motion a

[1:10:16] voice vote would be fine.

[1:10:18] » Okay. Is everyone okay with the

[1:10:20] amendment? This is not voting on the

[1:10:22] variance yet. This is voting on the

[1:10:24] amendment. So the proposal is the front

[1:10:27] yard shall align the the garage front

[1:10:31] setback shall align with the corner of

[1:10:33] the house closest to it and the garage

[1:10:35] shall not be more than 12 feet in height

[1:10:37] requiring a one foot

[1:10:39] » Which so that's not the the the actual

[1:10:41] the motion itself is is to uh allow a

[1:10:44] 4.7 foot setback from the front yard

[1:10:46] required setback and a one foot uh

[1:10:49] excuse me a 4.7 foot variance from the

[1:10:51] front yard setback and a one foot

[1:10:54] variance from the sideyard setback. That

[1:10:55] was the motion.

[1:10:56] » And and to comply with that, they're

[1:10:58] going to have to come down.

[1:10:59] » Right.

[1:10:59] » Right. Okay.

[1:11:00] » Unless they get more creative.

[1:11:02] » Do we need to vote on a voice vote on

[1:11:04] that?

[1:11:04] » If Yeah, just on that motion.

[1:11:06] » Just on the amendment. So, all in favor

[1:11:07] of the amended motion

[1:11:11] amendment to the to the approval motion,

[1:11:13] please say I. I.

[1:11:15] » I. All opposed. Okay. So now do we we

[1:11:20] have this? So what we have before us is

[1:11:22] a is a motion to grant the variance

[1:11:28] for the front yard of 4.7 foot variance

[1:11:31] and a one foot variance for the garage.

[1:11:35] Do we have any discussion on this? I

[1:11:37] think that we do have the hardship of

[1:11:39] the irregular shape.

[1:11:41] » Yes. And we have the hardship of um the

[1:11:46] placement of the house

[1:11:49] » And the you know you can't really put a

[1:11:51] garage in the back because you can't get

[1:11:53] to it really given the odd shape of the

[1:11:57] lot and the fact that the lot does not

[1:12:00] meet the required size for the 15,000

[1:12:03] square foot zoning district that it's

[1:12:05] in.

[1:12:07] » Agree. notices.

[1:12:09] » I think I think that's a great summary.

[1:12:12] » Okay. So, all in favor of the motion as

[1:12:16] stated, please say I.

[1:12:18] » I.

[1:12:20] » All opposed?

[1:12:21] Randy, would you please pull the board?

[1:12:23] » I will. Debbie Surn,

[1:12:25] » I.

[1:12:26] » John Bur,

[1:12:27] » I.

[1:12:27] » Jennifer Gates,

[1:12:28] » I.

[1:12:29] » Randy Sprag, I Conrad Heber,

[1:12:32] » Your variance has been approved as

[1:12:34] amended. if you uh please see city staff

[1:12:37] during regular business hours for your

[1:12:39] next steps. Thank you very much.

[1:12:41] » And a question.

[1:12:43] » Sure.

[1:12:43] » I got confused the debate especially on

[1:12:46] the setback of of and going be in major

[1:12:51] hundreds of an inch and so forth, but

[1:12:53] it's just going to meet the corner of

[1:12:54] the house. Right.

[1:12:55] » That's right. It's going to meet the

[1:12:56] corner of the house and then

[1:12:58] » The garage is the garage

[1:13:02] if it meets the and and it meets the

[1:13:04] corner of the house is okay if it's less

[1:13:06] than 12 if it's 12 ft or high

[1:13:08] » And if you can limit it to 12 then the

[1:13:09] variance we give you on the side is much

[1:13:11] smaller

[1:13:11] » And and the one foot variance on the

[1:13:13] building line good.

[1:13:15] » Thank you all.

[1:13:16] » Thank you. A lot of fun watching you do

[1:13:18] your

[1:13:20] » Do we have any other business before

[1:13:22] this board tonight?

[1:13:23] » No additional business.

[1:13:26] Good evening all.

[1:13:27] » Do you know Thank you. Do you know if

[1:13:29] we're going to have a have have a

[1:13:31] meeting on the on October 8th?

[1:13:34] » Uh we might. It's not been confirmed

[1:13:36] yet.

[1:13:36] » Okay.

[1:13:37] » I will likely be absent for that

[1:13:39] meeting.

[1:13:40] » I may not be here for that one. It'll be

[1:13:43] close. We're leaving.

[1:13:47] » Oh, I'm like

[1:13:49] I

[1:13:50] » I'll send off the normal emails and you

[1:13:52] guys

[1:13:52] » I'm not sure yet. I made

[1:13:54] » Should be back in Colorado by then.

[1:13:56] » Okay.

[1:13:58] » Do we have a reason? Do we have a motion

[1:14:01] to adjurnn?

[1:14:02] » So move

[1:14:03] » And seconded.

[1:14:04] » All in favor?

[1:14:05] » I

Board of Adjustment 09/10/2026

Transcript