Schlueter replied “no”. Chairman Soule noted that these exhibits will be entered into the record.

2

Mr. Schlueter informed the members that his wife could not attend tonight. He indicated that he and his wife entered into a contract back in October of 2014 with the Mehlmans (developer) to purchase the property and a major interior renovation ensued to convert the 2-family structure into a single-family structure; the interior work was completed in June of 2015. He noted that after the interior renovation was complete, they realized the exterior didn’t match the interior (set up for a 2-family with two separate entrances to two front doors) and asked the Mehlmans to credit them a small amount of money for exterior renovations. The Mehlmans agreed and he and his wife then hired a landscape designer.

Mr. Schlueter then referred to two letters of support and four photos of his property.

Chairman Soule noted that these documents will be marked as Applicant’s Group Exhibit 1.

Mr. Schlueter indicated that as they prepared to close in June, he was told that the front lawn needed to be completed before the permits would be closed out. He stated that he visited City Hall and showed Jackie Williams the [exterior] plan, to which she responded that everything was fine since flatwork did not require a permit. He noted that she was very nice and very helpful throughout the permitting process and that he went ahead and proceeded with the exterior work per the plan as he thought it was okay to do so, based on his conversation with Jackie. He then stated that there were grading issues that were fixed [garage had previously leaked] and that these plans improve both the appearance and value of the property. He stated that his next door neighbor, Stan, is happy that his basement no longer leaks. He indicated that the plans added 2.9% coverage to the site for an overall coverage percentage of 66.1% (previous coverage of 63.2%). He informed the members that he discussed the situation with Louis Clayton [former City Planner] who basically told him to simply remove some concrete. He stated that he is here this evening to request a coverage modification so the permits can be closed; he added that he does not want this to negatively impact the Mehlmans.

Chairman Soule stated that the presentation was thorough and well described.

Mel Disney asked Ken if the property owner is responsible for ensuring the laws are followed.

Ken Heinz replied “yes”.

Mel Disney asked what percentage of the neighborhood properties has two front sidewalks.

Mr. Schlueter indicated that he did not know the answer to that question, but that there are a lot of 2 family structures in the neighborhood.

Mel Disney commented that he assumed that he [Mr. Schlueter] requested two front sidewalks.

Nicki Herrington referred to the side sidewalk leading to the front door.

Mel Disney stated that the property originally had two front sidewalks leading to two entrance doors. He asked Mr. Schlueter if he still wants both sidewalks.

He asked Mr. Schlueter if he still wants both sidewalks.

3

Mr. Schlueter replied “yes”, adding that he likes the way the yard is designed. He questioned if it would be enough if they were to remove a portion of the second sidewalk [enough to get back down to the original 63.2% coverage).

Mel Disney stated that he wasn’t sure.

Mr. Schlueter indicated that he would have to remove about 210 square feet to get back down to the 63.2%.

Nicki Herrington asked staff about the coverage issue.

Susan Istenes stated that coverage [for this site] is limited to 55% which regulation is triggered when projects require site plan review, i.e. major additions or new construction. The Plan Commission can allow up to an additional 5%. The practice has been that the City has allowed non-conformities, including coverage, to remain as-is, but not be increased if a project is done that does not require site plan (Plan Commission) review, as was the case here. Because the current regulations maximize coverage at 55% (with PC approval of up to an additional 5%), the variance being requested here is 11.1%.

Nicki Herrington asked if 63.2% satisfies everybody.

Susan Istenes stated that remaining at 63.2% would be consistent with the City’s policy.

Liza Streett stated that she understands why the owner desires a sidewalk from the driveway to the house and wondered if incorporating stepping stones would be a good replacement to what’s there now. She stated that the yard is beautifully designed.

Chairman Soule agreed, stating that he walked the property and noticed a cooking area and outdoor beverage container.

Rick Bliss stated he sees two remedies here: one would be to create a hardship for the owner by forcing him to dig up concrete or, two, to grant the variance; he does not see an alternative.

Aaron Fausz, 606 South Meramec Avenue (corner of South Meramec and Venetian), spoke in favor of the requested variance. He stated that he looks directly into the Schlueter’s yard and that they have one of the nicest looking yards in the neighborhood.

Mel Disney stated that a third alternative would be to submit documents to the Plan Commission for their review.

Susan Istenes stated that the Plan Commission could only grant up to 60% and that the original coverage on this site already exceeded 60%. She reiterated that staff allows revisions to the exterior provided the amount of coverage is not exceeded; unless the project requires appearance before the Plan Commission at which time current regulations are enforced. She stated that if this Board denies the variance application, the owner will only be required to reduce coverage