Board of Adjustment

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA July 9, 2025 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: Richard Alferman, Chair Don Garrison Jr., Alternate Latonya Grotegeers, Vice-Chair Brian Andrzejewski, Alternate Maureen Rogers-Bouxsein, Secretary Bob Kneemiller, Alternate Marita Malone In accordance with Chapter 400 (Zoning Code) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of St. Charles, Missouri, notice is hereby given that the Board of Adjustment will conduct a public hearing on Wednesday, July 9, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. on the fourth floor of City Hall in the City Council Chambers, 200 North Second Street in St. Charles, Missouri for the purpose of giving interested parties and citizens an opportunity to be heard on the following matters: Call to Order and Call the Roll The Pledge of Allegiance Approve the Minutes from the May 5, 2025 Meeting 1. Case No. BOA-2025-07. Address: 1028-1038 S Main Street (Thomas Alan Group Architects- Christopher Pike). Four requests: 1.) A request to decrease the minimum front yard building setback on the Barbour Street frontage from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet as regulated in Section 400.200(D)(5)(a); 2.) A request to decrease the minimum rear yard building setback from thirty (30) feet to thirteen and a half (13.5) feet as regulated in Section 400.200(D)(5)(c); 3.) A request to decrease the minimum sight distance triangle of a corner lot from thirty (30) feet to twenty (20) feet as regulated in Section 400.540 of the City of St. Charles Code of Ordinances; and 4.) A request to increase the maximum encroachment for a porch from six (6) feet to seven (7) feet as regulated in section 400.620(A)(4). The property is zoned HCD/SMPD Historic Commercial District within the South Main Preservation District (Ward 2). Adjournment Board of Adjustment Agenda 1 The next meeting of the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for Monday, August 4, 2025 on the fourth floor of City Hall in the City Council Chambers, 200 N. Second Street, St. Charles, MO 63301. The City of St. Charles offers all interested citizens the opportunity to attend public meetings. If you wish to attend this public meeting and require an accommodation due to a disability, please contact the Office of the City Clerk to coordinate an accommodation at least two (2) business days in advance of the scheduled meeting at 636-949-3282 or 636-949-3289 (TTY – for the hearing impaired). The City of St. Charles, Missouri fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, please call the City Clerk’s Office at 636-949-3282 or visit City Hall located at 200 North Second Street, St. Charles, Missouri, 63301. All decisions and official actions of the Board of Adjustment are considered filed in the office of the Board upon the adjournment of the meeting in accordance to Section 89.080 RSMo. INCLEMENT WEATHER: In case of inclement weather, please call 636-949-3222 after 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to be informed of the status of the meeting. POSTED ON 07/03/2025 @ 4:45 pm by MPB Board of Adjustment Agenda 2  CITY OF ST CHARLES STATE OF MISSOURI BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING May 5, 2025 THE HONORABLE RICHARD ALFERMAN, CHAIRMAN PRESIDING TIME: 6:00 p.m. MINUTES By Madelyn Eversman City of St. Charles, Missouri 200 N Second Street St. Charles, Missouri 63301 (636) 949-3222  PROCEEDINGS (WHEREUPON, at 6:00 p.m. o’clock, Monday May 5, 2025, at the Saint Charles City Hall Building, 200 North Second Street, Fourth Floor, Saint Charles, Missouri, and the following proceedings were held, to- wit: with the following persons being present.) Richard Alferman, Chairman Maureen Rogers-Bouxsein Latonya Grotegeers Marita Malone John Morgan Madelyn Eversman, City Planner AGENDA ITEM #1 – ROSS SHERMAN CASE NO. BOA-2025-05. ADDRESS: 3117 YALE BOULEVARD MOTION WAS MADE BY MARITA MALONE: I move to approve a request to decrease the minimum setback for a six (6) foot tall fence on a corner lot, within a required front yard on the side of a property not used as a principal entrance, from ten (10) feet to eight (8) feet as regulated in Section 400.550(A)(2)(a)(2)(d) of the City of St. Charles Code of Ordinances. The property is zoned R-1E Single Family Residential District (Ward 10).Ordinances. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY LATONYA GROTEGEERS ROLL-CALL VOTE 5 IN FAVOR 0 AGAINST: APPROVED. Meeting adjourned at 6:09 p.m.  AGENDA ITEM #1 Memorandum To: Board of Adjustment From: Madelyn P. Brown Date: July 9, 2025 Subject: BOA-2024-07: 1028-1038 S Main Street – Executive Summary The intent of this memo is to provide an executive summary to the request of this application due to the length and depth of the attached staff report. The attached report addresses four variance requests in association with the development of attached townhomes located on four (4) vacant parcels, 1028-1038 South Main. These requests are as follows: 1. To decrease the minimum front yard building setback on the Barbour Street frontage from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet. 2. To decrease the minimum rear yard building setback from thirty (30) feet to thirteen and a half (13.5) feet. 3. To decrease the minimum sight distance triangle of a corner lot from thirty (30) feet to twenty (20) feet. 4. To increase the maximum encroachment for a porch from six (6) feet to seven (7) feet. This proposal is unique, as this is the last undeveloped lot on South Main. This report addresses the significant differences between the zoning code standards of this district and that of the South Main Preservation District Design Guidelines, which were adopted with consultation of the U.S. Department of the Interior/Missouri State Historic Preservation Office. After careful review, Staff (including consultation with the City’s Historic Preservation Planner) has determined that the zoning standards and Design Guidelines are at odds. This report concludes that the variance requests are warranted, as staff believes the Design Guidelines should supersede the zoning standards in this unique instance. Furthermore, approving the variances will assist in preserving the historic character of the South Main Preservation District and follow through with the Design Guidelines which were approved by both the Landmarks Board and City Council concerning this unique proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After review of the request and all pertinent information, the Department of Community Development recommends that the request be APPROVED. 200 North Second Street Saint Charles, MO 63301 Ph: 636.949.3222 Fax: 636.949.3557 www.stcharlescitymo.gov  AGENDA ITEM #1 STAFF REPORT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE NO. BOA-2025-07 1028-1038 S MAIN STREET JULY 9, 2025 BY MADELYN P. BROWN GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Christopher Pike Thomas Alan Group Architects 23 North Gore Avenue, Suite 302 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Owner: Katy Trail Development, LLC 556 Leffingwell Avenue Kirkwood, MO 63122 Location: 1028-1038 S Main Street Ward 2 Request: Four requests: 1.) A request to decrease the minimum front yard building setback on the Barbour Street frontage from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet as regulated in Section 400.200(D)(5)(a); 2.) A request to decrease the minimum rear yard building setback from thirty (30) feet to thirteen and a half (13.5) feet as regulated in Section 400.200(D)(5)(c); 3.) A request to decrease the minimum sight distance triangle of a corner lot from thirty (30) feet to twenty (20) feet as regulated in Section 400.540 of the City of St. Charles Code of Ordinances; and 4.) A request to increase the maximum encroachment for a porch from six (6) feet to seven (7) feet as regulated in section 400.620(A)(4). Zoning: HCD/SMPD Historic Commercial District within the South Main Preservation District Adjacent Zoning & Land Use: Direction Zoning Land Use North HCD/SMPD Single-Family Residence South HCD/LMPD Meeting Facility East PD-RF/EHP State Park (Katy Trail) West HCD/SMPD Single-Residence ANALYSIS The subject properties are approximately 0.71 acres and are zoned HCD/SMPD Historic Commercial District within the South Main Preservation District. The subject properties are currently vacant and are the last remaining undeveloped lots within the District and along South Main Street. The applicant is seeking to construct a new development with fourteen (14) attached townhomes, utilizing all four lots. With this proposal, the applicant has submitted four (4) requests. Case No. BOA-2025-07 Page 2 1028-1038 S Main St 1. To decrease the minimum front yard building setback on the Barbour Street frontage from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet. 2. To decrease the minimum rear yard building setback from thirty (30) feet to thirteen and a half (13.5) feet. 3. To decrease the minimum sight distance triangle of a corner lot from thirty (30) feet to twenty (20) feet. 4. To increase the maximum encroachment for a porch from six (6) feet to seven (7) feet. It should be noted that the site plan is planned to be reviewed by the Landmarks Board at the July 21st meeting if these variance requests are approved by the Board of Adjustment (as they do not have authority to waive zoning setbacks). Figure 1: Rendering of proposed site and construction. Criteria for Granting a Variance: A variance is intended to provide relief to property owners who, due to their unique circumstances, would face practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship from the strict application of the zoning ordinance. However, while a variance can provide relief to a property owner and still protect the zoning ordinance from invalidation, variances are typically granted because of conditions or circumstances existing that are peculiar to the property or lot of record and not the result of the actions of the applicant. Pursuant to §400.1080, the power to hear and decide variance cases regarding the requirements of Chapter 400 (Zoning Code) lies with the Board of Adjustment. The Board’s decision is considered a quasi-judicial act; thus, the board shall consider the evidence submitted by staff, as well as the evidence presented by the applicant and make a finding with regard to the request for a variance. The decision of the Board is subject to appeal to the Circuit Court of St. Charles County. In addition to the criteria established §400.1090(E & F), G of the same section provides additional Case No. BOA-2025-07 Page 3 1028-1038 S Main St policies that should be considered before a ruling on a variance. Therein, it establishes that: 1. Financial disadvantages to the property owner shall not constitute conclusive proof of unnecessary hardships within the purpose of zoning; 2. The Board does not possess the power to grant a zoning variance permitting the use of land or buildings that is not included as a use in the district involved; 3. In granting a variance, the Board may attach thereto any conditions and safeguards it deems necessary or desirable in furthering the purposes of the chapter; and 4. The Board shall study the effects of such proposed buildings or use upon the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, public utilities and other matters pertaining to the general welfare. According to §400.1090 (F), the following factors are relevant to determining whether strict application of the regulation would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship: (1) Size of the variance. The relationship of the requested variance to the requirements of the applicable zoning regulations, i.e. a five foot variance is substantial if the required setback is seven feet; it is not as substantial if the required setback is 100 feet.  The request to decrease the minimum front yard building setback on the Barbour Street frontage from ten (10) feet to five (5) feet is a 50% decrease. This request would be considered substantial because it is greater than 25%.  The request to decrease the minimum rear yard building setback from thirty (30) feet to thirteen and a half (13.5) feet is a 55% decrease. This request would be considered substantial because it is greater than 25%.  The request to decrease the minimum sight distance triangle of a corner lot from thirty (30) feet to twenty (20) feet is an approximately 33% decrease. This request would be considered substantial because it is greater than 25%.  The request to increase the maximum encroachment for a porch from six (6) feet to seven (7) feet an approximate 14% increase. This request would be considered not substantial because it is less than 25%. (2) Effect on government services. The effect of the requested variance on population, density and available government facilities such as water, fire and police protection, and sanitary services. No negative effects on government services have been documented via staff review as adequate utilities services (transportation, water, sewer, and emergency services) are present and plans will abide by City Building & Fire Code. (3) Effect on neighbors or neighborhood. The effect of the requested variance on adjoining properties or on the character of the neighborhood generally. After review by the planning staff, the approval of the variances should not have a negative impact on the adjacent properties or the character of the neighborhood. Case No. BOA-2025-07 Page 4 1028-1038 S Main St  Decreasing the minimum front yard setback off Barbour Street: Due to the location of the proposed development within the historic district, many of the adjacent properties have front yard setbacks that are non-compliant with current Zoning Code design standards (properties built prior to zoning). Historic lots are generally smaller in nature compared to modern lots and generally the structures were pushed near the front property lines. In this case, the request is associated with a secondary frontage along Barbour Street to the south (see Figure 1 below). Per the Zoning Ordinance, the HCD zoning district (subject properties zoning) allows a zero (0) foot side yard setbacks if the adjacent use is commercial, which the property to the south is a commercial use (Meeting Facility/Wedding Venue). Due to this being frontage of a dead-end street and not an adjacent private property, it is technically considered a front yard. Discussions occurred to vacate the street; however, both the Applicant and the City would prefer to leave as Right-of-Way for a future enhancement to improve pedestrian access to the Katy Trail. Based upon the above, decreasing the minimum front yard setback would not have a negative impact on the neighboring properties/district as this is essentially a side yard which, without the street would allow for a zero (0) foot setback. Barbour Street Katy Trail Figure 1: Barbour Street and Katy Trail terminus identified.  Decreasing the minimum rear yard setback: As indicated above, many historic properties are non-compliant with current zoning setback standards. The Old Stone Chapel, located directly to the south, is one example of non-conformity with a fifteen (15) foot rear setback. Other lots with non-conforming rear setbacks along South Main in the general vicinity include, but are not limited to, 920 S Main and 915 S Main (see Figure 2, below on page 5). The variance request under review with this application aims to achieve a similar design as other properties along South Main, to better fit within the historic district neighborhood. Additionally, the development will have a Case No. BOA-2025-07 Page 5 1028-1038 S Main St retaining wall for additional separation along the rear yard property line, further minimizing the effect on the neighbors and neighborhood. Figure 2: 915 S Main, with non-conforming rear yard setback identified.  Decreasing the sight distance triangle form 30 feet to 20 feet: The sight distance triangle to be decreased is located at the corner of South Main Street and Barbour Street (see Figure 3, below). As outlined above, Barbour Street is not a through right-of-way and only currently serves the proposed development and the meeting facility to the south. Due to the limited traffic at this intersection, this request should not have a negative impact on the neighboring properties and district. Furthermore, there are many intersections within the historic district which are not compliant with the sight distance triangle standard, with the structures were built close to the property lines. Examples of such properties include, but are not limited to, 820 S Main, 724 S Main, and 620 S Main (see Figure 4, on page 6). This variance request will aid the applicant in achieving good design, which fits into the fabric of the historic district. Therefore, this request would have not have a negative effect on the neighborhood and neighbors. Figure 3: Proposed 20’ site distance triangle identified on the submitted site plan. Case No. BOA-2025-07 Page 6 1028-1038 S Main St Figure 4: 620 S Main, with the non-compliant sight distance triangle identified.  Increasing the maximum porch encroachment to a front yard: While the applicant is proposing an increase in the maximum porch encroachment, sidewalk and landscaping will be maintained along the front building line of South Main Street. This request is specific to the porch of unit five, which will remain open-air, further minimizing any impact on neighboring properties and the surrounding district. Similar to the other variances requested above, many (if not most) porches within the historic district are non-conforming and constructed in close proximity to the property line and tend to protrude closer to the street. These properties include, but are not limited to, 828 S Main, 903 S Main, and 701 S Main (see Figure 5, to the left). Based on these existing conditions of the historic district, and the applicant’s intent to fit into the historic design standards with the proposed infill development, this request would not have negative impact on the neighbors and neighborhood. Essentially the Figure 5: 828 S Main, with the non-compliant porch encroachment identified. request would allow the normal design theme and is not the exception.  Design Guidelines of the South Main Preservation District: The Architectural Guidelines for the South Main Street Historic District were created to provide guidance for the perservation of the character of the South Main Preservation District. This document also provides guidelines for new construction within the district. While the Case No. BOA-2025-07 Page 7 1028-1038 S Main St above variance evaluation section (criteria 3) is specific to the effect on neighboring propeties, it also deals with the character of the neighborhood, which the guidelines were specifically created to preserve. Page 30 of this document states: “In the best situation, new construction can aid in the understanding of a district by strengthening the sense of visual continuity. Few opportunities exist for such ‘infill’ in the District.”. The following list outlines the character-defining features specifically recommended by the Guidelines within the SMPD, which this proposal aims to implement through the variance requests (with staff anysis in italics): Building Form, Mass and Scale 4.6 Maintain the historic building form, mass and scale. The location and scale of the proposed structure is reflective of the existing historic neighborhood within the SMPD. Granting the variance requests would ensure that the structure would maintain the historic building form, mass, and scale of the district. Site Planning for a New Building 6.1 With a new primary building, create a similar relationship of the structure to its site and the street. Each of the variance requests are associated with placing the structure in a closer proximiety to the street, in order to replicate the placement of other structures within the district. 6.2 On a previously undeveloped site, align a new structure at the sidewalk edge. The proposal is oriented in close proximety to the sidewalk edge on its two frontages (South Main and Barbour Street) in order to fit the character of the district and the adjoining area. Porches 6.47 Build porches to match original porches in form and detail. The submitted site plan includes porches in close proximiety to the streetscape, as encouraged by the Design Guidelines, contributting to the overall preservation of the district. These design guidelines, as indicated above, are at specific odds with the zoning code, i.e. setbacks and other standards. It is staff’s opinion that the implementation of the zoning standards would interfere with the preservation efforts of the City as documented by the adopted Design Guidelines of the SMPD. The Design Guidelines should superceed the zoning code, in this unique instance, as they are critical in preserving our historic districts. Alternatives to a variance. The existence of a feasible alternative to the applicant’s proposal or other means of alleviating the hardship.  Alternative to decreasing the minimum front yard setback off Barbour Street: While the required front yard setback for this zoning district is ten (10) feet, the surrounding built environment predominately has non-compliant front yard setbacks, with Case No. BOA-2025-07 Page 8 1028-1038 S Main St structures built in close proximity to the streetscape. This requested reduction in the front yard setback aims to conform to nearby properties and their associated construction. As discussed above, the SMPD Guidelines support design centered in replicating the surrounding built environment. While there is an alternative to decrease the square footage of the proposed development/alter the proposed orientation, the proposal as presented would not be possible.  Alternative to decreasing the minimum rear yard setback: The required rear yard setback is thirty (30) feet. However, the existing conditions of the built environment of the historic district have many structures that do not comply with this requirement. In order to achieve the design proposed, a reduction in the minimum rear yard setback would be necessary. As previously discussed, the guidelines of this historic district reinforce the need to implement design which fits into the district, follows a similar appearance as the existing, and preserving the district. The alternative available is to decrease the square footage of the proposed development in order to comply. If the design was to comply with zoning code, the proposal could not be achieved while also existing in harmony of the district.  Alternative to decreasing the sight distance triangle: As stated above, the applicant has requested a variance for a twenty (20) foot sight distance triangle in order to place the structure closer to the streetscape to achieve an appearance in line with the surrounding area. As described above, this request will achieve the desired appearance of the district. An alternative to seeking the variance would be to adjust the placement of the structure to adhere to the thirty foot sight triangle standard; however, if made compliant, the proposal would not be feasible, and not meet the Design Guidelines.  Alternative to increasing the maximum porch encroachment: To be consistent with the neighboring properties along South Main Street, an increased porch encroachment of seven (7) feet has been proposed in association with the provided site plan. If the applicant were to decrease the size of the proposed porch, the encroachment standard would be met. That said, this project represents good design that is compatible with the historic district guidelines. As noted above, this follows the guidelines of the SMPD, and would not be achieved without the approval of this variance request. (4) Justice. The granting of a variance is a just action. The cause of the difficulty or the hardship should be unique to the land rather than to the applicant and should be related to the topography, configuration of the lot, or other characteristics of the land. The applicant or economic conditions should not be the cause of the difficulty.  Justice for decreasing the minimum front yard setback: While the developer may reconfigure the proposal to meet the zoning standards, the proposed development reflects good design and is consistent with the character of the historic district, where buildings are typically located close to the streetscape, as dictated by the SMPD. This request ensures that the design of this proposal will achieve an appearance which represents the historic fabric of the district and blends into the character of the neighborhood. Section 400.300(A) of the Zoning Code provides a purpose statement for the South Main Preservation District (the overlay district of this proposal). This Case No. BOA-2025-07 Page 9 1028-1038 S Main St section states (emphasis added by staff): “The purpose of the South Main Preservation District is to preserve historic areas, buildings, monuments or other historic features which contribute or will contribute to the heritage of the City or the State”. As previously discussed, the SMPD Guidelines also provides language which supports new construction which encourages design from the existing historic structures as being proposed by the design in question. From staff’s analysis, and upon discussions with the City’s Historic Preservation Planner Taylor Moore, the design guidelines of the district should take precedence over the zoning standards in this unique case. This variance request aims to meet the purpose of the SMPD through the preservation of historic design features, while also complying with the Design Guidelines of the district, over the zoning standards. Given this, Staff believes the approval of this request would be considered a just action.  Justice for decreasing the minimum rear yard setback: As stated above, granting the variance as requested would not provide much of a negative impact as this rear faces out to the City’s parking lot and the Katy Trail as well as the existence of other non- conforming structures throughout the historic district that don’t meet current setbacks (lots were designed and built upon prior to any zoning or their design standards/setbacks). As stated above, the intent of this request is to meet the design standards of the district and fulfill the purpose statement of the SMPD and its Guidelines. As described above, these standards are recommended to have priority over the zoning code, as these guidelines are of more importance in preserving historic character of the neighborhood/district. It should also be noted that the rear yard of the proposed development could be interpreted as a front yard as the rear building is being proposed to face the Katy Trail. This orientation is designed to define the space through creating a focus around the residential features in harmony with a pedestrian right-of-way (mimicking a frontage). The front yard setback for the district is ten (10) feet. With the proposed 13.5 foot setback, this setback would be compliant with the front yard standard setback if the Katy Trail were an actual roadway. Given this, Staff believes the approval of this request would be considered a just action.  Justice for decreasing the sight distance triangle: The intent of the sight distance triangle standard is to ample visibility for vehicles turning onto the roadway from the intersection of a street. However, based on review of this application, the proposed twenty (20) foot distance would be adequate at this intersection. As stated previously, Barbour Street is a dead end street with minimum traffic with no plans of extension (as it only serves the proposed multi-family development and the existing meeting facility). Additionally, the sidewalk extends at the corner, providing additional visibility of the South Main roadway, beyond the provided sight distance triangle within the property lines. These factors, in addition to the slow moving traffic along South Main, would provide adequate safety through a reduced sight triangle. The SMPD Guidelines are also complied with by achieving the proposed historic design through the variance approval. Given this, Staff believes the approval of this request would be considered a just action. Case No. BOA-2025-07 Page 10 1028-1038 S Main St  Justice for increasing the maximum porch encroachment: Although the approval of this variance would allow each unit to have an increased porch encroachment, this request is specific to the open air porch of unit five, as it is the only porch which doesn’t comply with the encroachment standard as currently proposed. As indicated earlier in this report, the applicant’s proposed increase of the maximum porch encroachment is intended to provide a similar design to nearby historic structures along Main Street, as dictated the Design Guidelines of the district (which have porches which extend out towards the front property line). The porch encroachment design standard ensures that a front yard and pedestrian walkway is maintained, both of which are maintained with this proposal. Given this, Staff believes the approval of this request would be considered a just action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION After review of the request and all pertinent information, the Department of Community Development recommends that the request be APPROVED. Figure 6: Aerial of subject site. Case No. BOA-2025-07 Page 11 1028-1038 S Main St Figure 7: Site plan of proposed development. Figure 8: Street view of subject property. The following are the criteria that the Board of Adjustment must consider when hearing an appeal to the zoning ordinance. Please address the following criteria in relation to your request: 400.200.D.5 MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 1. Size of the Variance. The relationship of the requested variance to the requirements of the applicable zoning regulations, i.e. a five-foot variance is substantial if the required setback is seven feet, it is not as substantial if the required setback is 100 feet. Front yard setback - Existing front yard setback along Barbour Street is Ten feet (10'). We are asking for a 5' front yard setback. This is a 50% reduction on the required front yard setback along Barbour Street. Rear Yard Setback - Existing rear yard setback facing the Katy Trail is Thirty feet (30'). We are asking for an 13'-6” rear yard setback. This is a 5 5 % reduction of the required rear yard setback. 2. Effect on Government Services. The effect of the requested variance on population, density and available government facilities such as water, fire and police protection, and sanitary services. We feel there is no effect on government services. Access to the units will remain for Fire, Police, Water and other Utility services. We have had discussions with the Fire Department and Public Works Department regarding these setbacks / building locations. The only preliminary comment from the Fire Marshall was they would like us to add a hydrant in order to maintain correct distances from hydrant to the back corner of our building. 3. Effect on the neighbors or Neighborhood. The effect of the requested variance on adjoining properties or on the character of the neighborhood generally. We feel there is no negative effect on the neighbors or neighborhood with a decreased front yard setback. We feel we are more closely matching the existing buildings on Main Street that are closer to the street, 4. Alternatives to a variance. The existence of a feasible alternative to the applicant’s proposal or other means of alleviating the hardship. An alternative would be to decrease the square footage of the units and the driveway or reorient the units into a different format. However, we feel the current proposed orientation provides the best views and gives maximum privacy to the neighbor. This orientation also matches those of the existing buildings up and down Main Street. The challenges associated with this property include significant grade changes and flood elevation. These variances help offset the significant costs associated with installing more walls and infrastructure to be able to utilize this property and remain cohesive with the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Justice. The granting of the variance is a just action. The cause of the difficulty - the hardship should be unique to the land rather than to the applicant and should be related to the topography, configuration of the lot, or other characteristics of the land. The applicant or economic conditions should not be the cause of the difficulty: Due to the smaller size of the lot and base flood elevation, we found the need to be very careful with locating the buildings. The base flood elevation forces us to raise our structures and use retaining walls, which in turn push us away from the property edges so we can fit the retaining walls. In addition to the building sizes, we  need to maintain a proper distance between buildings for fire department services and ease of use for tenants. In addition to raising the rear units due to the base flood elevation, we also need to set the drive entrance to be flush with Barbour Street. All of these parameters contribute to locking in our building and driveway locations. 400,540 CORNER VISIBILITY 1. Size of the Variance. The relationship of the requested variance to the requirements of the applicable zoning regulations, i.e. a five-foot variance is substantial if the required setback is seven feet, it is not as substantial if the required setback is 100 feet. We are asking for a twenty (20') foot dimension in lieu of the thirty (30') foot dimension, which is a 33% reduction in the required dimension. 2. Effect on Government Services. The effect of the requested variance on population, density and available government facilities such as water, fire and police protection, and sanitary services. The effect of the requested variance could be a minor decrease in vehicle and pedestrian traffic visibility for those utilizing the intersection. 3. Effect on the n eighbors or Neighborhood. The effect of the requested variance on adjoining properties or on the character of the neighborhood generally. Decreasing the corner visibility dimension will allow the buildings to be closer to South Main Street, mimicking the proximity of the existing buildings on Main Street. 4. Alternatives to a variance. The existence of a feasible alternative to the applicant=s proposal or other means of alleviating the hardship. An alternative would be to decrease the square footage of the units and the driveway or to reorient the units into a different format. However, we feel the current proposed orientation provides the best views and gives maximum privacy to the neighbor. This orientation also matches those of the existing buildings up and down Main Street. In our opinion, in lieu of maintaining the required corner visibility, providing stop signs at this intersection is more appropriate. 5. Justice. The granting of the variance is a just action. The cause of the difficulty - the hardship should be unique to the land rather than to the applicant and should be related to the topography, configuration of the lot, or other characteristics of the land. The applicant or economic conditions should not be the cause of the difficulty: In order to mimic the layout o f existing buildings at the intersections of Main Street and perpendicular streets, we are locating our building similarly to continue the historic feel of the area. The right-of-way is set back further at this location due to parking along the street. Drivers will be well beyond the building corner when stopped to turn onto South Main Street. Additionally, Barbour Street is a stub street, as it dead ends before reaching the Katy Trail to the east. 410.110.B1.A RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO BASE FLOOD ELEVATION 1. Size of the Variance. The relationship of the requested variance to the requirements of the applicable zoning regulations, i.e. a five-foot variance is substantial if the required setback is seven feet, it is not as substantial if the required setback is 100 feet. Nearly the entire lot is below base flood elevation, which makes this lot difficult to utilize. Therefore, we are proposing that the first-floor level of the proposed buildings will be elevated to one foot (1’) above the base flood elevation. The lower-level garage would be below the base flood elevation. The lower-level garage will be constructed of concrete walls and a garage door with required flood vents located per code. The lower-level garage will have parking space for vehicles, an entry space with a staircase up to the first floor and a space for the bottom of the elevator shaft and pit. 2. Effect on Government Services. The effect of the requested variance on population, density and available government facilities such as water, fire and police protection, and sanitary services. We feel there is little to no effect on government services. 3. Effect on the n eighbors or Neighborhood. The effect of the requested variance on adjoining properties or on the character of the neighborhood generally. We feel this is a positive effect on the neighbors and neighborhood. 4. Alternatives to a variance. The existence of a feasible alternative to the applicants proposal or other means of alleviating the hardship. An alternative to what we are proposing would be a large open air parking garage structure at grade with two story condos constructed on top. We felt that this would be too massive and cover the entire parcel of land as well as loom over the neighbors. Another alternative would be to bring in a large amount of dirt and raise the grade substantially above the neighbors and then set the lower level of the buildings on this fill. This would make it more difficult to connect to Barbour Street at its current elevation and this would also loom above the neighbors. 5. Justice. The granting of the variance is a just action. The cause of the difficulty - the hardship should be unique to the land rather than to the applicant and should be related to the topography, configuration of the lot, or other characteristics of the land. The applicant or economic conditions should not be the cause of the difficulty: As stated earlier, nearly the entire lot is below base flood elevation, which makes this lot difficult to utilize and abide by the zoning ordinance. LOCATION MAP SITE LAYOUT 1 of 1 LOCATION MAP COVER SHEET/ SITE PLAN 1 of 2  GRADING PLAN / EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 2 of 2  New Townhomes at: No. Description Date THOMAS ALAN GROUP PERMIT SET 6-1-2025 ARCHITECTURE │DESIGN │INTERIORS © 23 North Gore Avenue● Suite 303 of 8 Webster Groves, MO 63119 KATY TRAIL PLACE A8 Sheet Number: (314) 301-9975 ● ThomasAlanGroup.com 1028, 1030, 1034 &1038 South Main Street St. Charles, MO 63301