Creve Coeur board approves variance to rebuild deck at 465 Twin Creek Road

The Creve Coeur Board of Adjustment voted unanimously on Jan. 16 to allow a 10‑foot encroachment into the required 12‑foot side‑yard setback at 465 Twin Creek Road so the property owners can rebuild an existing deck in its original footprint.

Homeowner John Hanacek, who identified himself as the owner of 465 Twin Creek Road, told the board the property’s ranch‑style house was built about 1975 and that a deck in approximately the same location has existed since shortly after the house was constructed. Hanacek said his family removed the deteriorated deck after safety concerns and is proposing a composite, lighted deck with aluminum railings and stairs. "My wife uses a cane," Hanacek said, arguing that the rebuilt deck will improve safety and access to the pool equipment.

City planner Stephanie Moore told the board the lot is part of the Twin Creek plat (approved in 1974) and is zoned ARDD, where side‑yard setbacks were added in later code updates. Moore said the rebuilt deck would sit about 2 feet from the property line, which is why the homeowners requested a 10‑foot variance into the 12‑foot side yard. Moore highlighted four of the eight variance criteria in the staff report, noting the structure’s long history in the same location, the homeowners’ claim that strict enforcement would cause practical difficulty because of slope and equipment access, and a letter of support from the nearest neighbor on file.

A single nearby resident, trustee Catherine Armstrong of 424 Twin Creek Road, spoke during public comment to urge the board to consider neighborhood aesthetics and green space, saying a concrete deck in that location "would take away from our neighborhood." The applicant and staff stated the intent is to rebuild within the prior footprint and not to increase the degree of nonconformity.

After questions about prior permits, grading, and alternative options — including extending a patio or relocating the deck to the rear — the board moved to approve the variance. The motion, read into the record by the chair, recited key findings that the hardship was not created by the current owner, that granting the variance would not adversely affect adjacent properties, and that strict application of the ordinance would cause severe practical difficulty. The board approved the motion on a roll‑call vote: Wylen — yes; Kastelic — yes; Mooney — yes; Gerst — yes; Mayerson — absent.

The board also directed staff to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting the board’s decision dated Jan. 16, 2025. The meeting adjourned following a brief status update from the city attorney on an unrelated Sherwin Lane appeal pending in circuit court.

The record assembled for the decision includes the staff report, applicant materials and presentation, staff presentation, the city code and comprehensive plan, and a neighbor support letter submitted with the application.