[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