HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110809minutesMINUTES
JEFFERSON CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
August 9, 2011
7:30 a.m.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Paul Graham
Kevin Meinhardt, Chairman
Stacey Young
Katy Lacy, Alternate
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Robert Dallmeyer, Jr.
Wilma Partee, Vice Chairman
Glenn Bonner, Alternate
Drew Hake, Alternate
COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT
Bill Luebbert, Alternate City Council Liaison
STAFF PRESENT
Janice McMillan, Director, Planning & Protective Services
Drew Hilpert, Associate City Counselor
Eric Barron, Senior Planner
Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant
ATTENDANCE RECORD
3 of 3
4of5
4of5
1 of 1
3of5
3of5
2of5
4of5
1. Call to Order and Introduction of Members, Ex -Officio Members and Staff
Chairman Meinhardt called the meeting to order and introduced Board members and staff. Board
procedures were explained. Chairman Meinhardt asked if there were any Board members who
would not participate in any of the hearings scheduled. A quorum of four (4) members was present
to hear the items on the agenda. All regular members and alternate Katy Lacy were designated to
vote.
Mr. Meinhardt announced that only four (4) Board members are present today and that
constitutes a quorum. He explained that this would require a unanimous vote of the four (4)
members present to approve any matter before the Board today. Mr. Meinhardt asked if both
Applicants wished to proceed or continue their case to the September 13, 2011 meeting. Both
Applicants confirmed that they have elected to proceed with four (4) members present.
2. Procedures Explained
The following documents were entered as exhibits for all items under consideration at this
meeting:
1. The City Code of The City of Jefferson, as amended
2. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map
3. Copies of applications under consideration
4. A list of property owners to whom notice of the hearing was sent
5. The affidavit of publication of notice of the public hearing
6. Copies of drawings and plans under consideration
7. Letters and memoranda from City staff
8. Staff reports and minutes of proceedings
9. Materials submitted by the public or the applicant
10. Rules of Procedure, Jefferson City, Missouri Board of Adjustment
Staff advised that items received at the hearings become the property of the Board of Adjustment.
3. Adoption of Agenda
Mr. Graham moved and Ms. Young seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion
passed 4-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Lacy, Meinhardt, Young
Jefferson City Board of Adjustment
August 9, 2011
•M
4. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Meeting of May 17, 2011
Ms. Young moved and Mr. Graham seconded to approve the minutes as written. The motion
passed 4-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Lacy, Meinhardt, Young
Communications Received
Correspondence was received for Case No. 811010
6. New Business ® Public Hearing
Case No. 811010 — 1725 Engelwood Drive, Fence Height Variance. Application filed by
Denise Leavitt, property owner, for a 3 feet variance to the maximum height for fences in
residential zones in order to construct a fence of 7 feet in height in the front yard along
Greenridge Court (Section 35-59.F.2 Standards for Fences and Walls in the RS district). The
property is located on the southern corner of the intersection of Engelwood Drive and Greenridge
Court and is described as part of Lot 40 of Engelwood Subdivision, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained that the Applicant is requesting a fence height
variance in order to construct a fence of seven (7) feet in height in the front yard along Greenridge
Court. He stated that City Code permits a six (6) foot tall fence in the rear or side yard and a four (4)
foot tall fence in the front yard. Mr. Barron explained that the property is somewhat subject to
practical difficulties due to having multiple street frontages and two front yards. He stated that
construction was begun prior to obtaining a fence permit and an inspection revealed that the fence
exceeds the height allowance for front yards. Mr. Barron explained that work on the fence was
halted pending the variance application.
Ms. Denise Leavitt, 1725 Engelwood Drive, spoke regarding this request and explained that she
was not aware of the City's requirements before the fence was built. She entered the following
photos into the record: (1) view of the fence standing on her patio; (2) view of the fence sitting on
her patio; (3) view of the fence from across the street; and (4) view of the front of the house. Ms.
Leavitt explained that the issue is privacy because she has an unobstructed view of the house
across the street. She stated that the previous fence was weathered and in disrepair and a vinyl
fence would look better and be easier to maintain. Ms. Leavitt explained that the privacy fence
would be along Greenridge Court and a shorter picket fence is proposed on the sides. She stated
that she does not have a backyard and the patio comes off of the family room and master bedroom.
Mr. Barron inquired whether the height of the fence is in fact seven (7) feet even though it is
represented in the drawing as eight (8) feet. In response, Ms. Leavitt explained that the dimensions
of the fence are 7 feet tall x 8 feet wide. Ms. Leavitt clarified that a building permit was not issued
prior to the construction of the fence.
Mr. Meinhardt inquired whether the returns on each end of the picket fence back to the house will
be no more than four (4) feet high. In response, Ms. Leavitt explained that the picket fence is five
(5) feet high.
Mr. Barron clarified that the picket fence would not necessarily need to be four (4) foot high if the
variance is approved.
Mr. Robert Farrer, 1723 Greenridge Court, spoke in opposition to this request and explained that
the subdivision covenants and restrictions do not permit fencing for property facing the curb line. He
stated that a four (4) foot fence or hedge is permitted from the front projection of the house to the
rear fence line. Mr. Farrer explained that the fence is not in keeping with the characteristics of the
neighborhood.
Correspondence was received from the following individuals:
Joseph & Lenora Twehus, 1719 Engelwood Drive
Mary & Gene Borgmeyer, 1739 Greenridge Court
Desiree Hale, 1733 Greenridge Court
Michael McCoy, 1733 Engelwood Drive
Jefferson City Board of Adjustment
August 9, 2011
Mr. Barron gave the Planning Division staff report.
Page 3
Ms. Leavitt explained that she was not aware that there were covenants and restrictions for this
subdivision.
Mr. Meinhardt explained that the Board's determination will be relative to the City ordinances.
Mr. Graham commented that he is sympathetic to the Applicant's desire for privacy because she
has no backyard and two front yards. He explained that whether or not the property owner is in
violation of the subdivision restrictions and covenants is not under the purview of this Board. Mr.
Graham stated that he is persuaded that the privacy issue is a sufficient reason.
Mr. Meinhardt commented that he visited the subject property and actually sat on the patio and
looked around. He stated that there is a compelling privacy issue. Mr. Meinhardt explained that she
has no backyard and two front yards. He stated that there is definitely a need for privacy as she sits
out on her patio. Mr. Meinhardt explained that it is a tough issue when something has already been
built and somebody has expended time, money and effort. Mr. Meinhardt explained that lowering
the fence to six feet to get it below what is required in any yard is a possibility although it wouldn't
make much of a difference.
Mr. Graham commented that this particular solution would be adequate to address her privacy
concerns, however, lowering the fence to six feet would not address the neighbors objections. He
stated that he sympathizes with those objections.
Mr. Meinhardt explained that another option would be to move the fence closer to the house
which would probably make it somewhat less objectionable. He stated that this option would require
her to tear out the fence and start over.
Mr. Graham commented that this option addresses one issue but effectively obstructs her ability
to use her yard.
Ms. Young stated that predications need to be made on the returns on each end of the picket
fence back to the house when making a motion. She inquired if she uses the five feet and one
elevation is seen from the actual front yard would she need a variance. In response, Mr. Barron
explained that the variance request is for the entirety of the fence, not just for the portion that has
been constructed.
Mr. Graham commented that the issue is whether everyone has had adequate notice. He
explained that in looking at her application he is satisfied that anyone who has looked at this
application should or would have thought that she was asking for a variance of seven feet of the
entire fence.
Mr. Barron explained that the notice that was published and sent to the neighbors was for the
maximum variance that she was requesting. He stated that within the application it is represented
as a five foot tall fence on the sides.
Mr. Meinhardt clarified that we would not need a motion to that effect if it is in the application and
would be part of the record.
Mr. Barron stated that the Applicant would be held to what was represented in her application.
Mr. Graham moved and Ms. Young seconded to approve a variance of 3 feet from the 4 feet
maximum height of fences in front yards of residential zones in order to construct a fence 7 feet in
height. The motion passed 4-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Lacy, Meinhardt, Young
Jefferson City Board of Adjustment
August 9, 2011
Page 4
Case No. B11011 — 1700 Block of Highway 179 (2500 Block of future Mission Drive),
Variances for Building Height, Sign Height, and Sign Area. Application filed by SSM
Regional Health Services, property owner, Brent VanConia, authorized representative, for the
following:
1. A variance of 60 feet to the maximum height of buildings in the C-2 General Commercial
zoning district in order to allow for a building 120 feet in height. (Section 35-51.0 Heights
of Buildings and Structures)
2. A variance of 88 feet to the maximum height of building mounted signs in order to erect a
sign 120 feet above grade. (Section 3-4.A. 1.d Maximum size and height)
3. A variance of 480 square feet to the maximum size of a building mounted sign in order to
allow for a 680 square foot wall sign. (Section 3-4.A.1.d Maximum size and height)
4. A variance of 380 square feet to the maximum total size of building mounted signage in
order to allow for a 680 square foot wall sign. (Section 3-4.A.1.d Maximum size and
height)
The property is located on the east side of Highway 179 one mile south of Edgewood
Drive and will be accessed by a future highway intersection and new road to be named
Mission Drive. The property is described as the southwest quarter of the southwest
quarter of Section 14, Township 44 North, Range 12 West. (Central Missouri
Professional Services, Consultant)
Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained one variance request is for building height and
three variance requests are for sign area/sign height. He stated that the property consists of
approximately 110 acres where the new hospital is planned to be located. Mr. Barron explained that
St. Mary's Hospital is proposed as a 120 foot tall building. He stated that the maximum height
permitted in the C-2 zoning district is 60 feet. Mr. Barron explained that the hospital is proposed to
have a 680 square foot wall mounted sign at the top of the building facing Mission Drive/Highway
179, resulting in a sign 120 feet above grade. He stated that the maximum height permitted for a
sign is 32 feet above grade. Mr. Barron explained that the maximum permitted size of a sign is 200
square feet and the maximum permitted total of all building mounted signage is 300 square feet.
Mr. Mike Bates, Central Missouri Professional Services, 2500 E. McCarty Street, spoke regarding
this request. Mr. Bates distributed the following visuals: (1) aerial photo of the hospital layout and
street plan; (2) north rendering; (3) south rendering; (4) east MOB rendering; (5) northwest exterior
elevation; (6) southwest exterior elevation; and (6) southeast exterior elevation. Mr. Bates explained
that the roof top units and elevator shafts will be screened. He stated that the sign on the bed tower
faces northwest towards Highway 179 and the new interchange. Mr. Bates explained that an open
house was held in May 2011 for the neighborhood and no negative feedback was received at that
time. He clarified that the sign is internally illuminated and the maximum height is 14 feet.
Mr. Michael Schnaare, Lead Architect, The Lawrence Group, 319 North 4th Street, St. Louis, MO
63102, spoke regarding this request. Mr. Schnaare explained that the hospital project is proposed
to break ground in April 2012 with completion in January 2015. He stated that putting the signage
on the bed tower reduces the impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Schnaare clarified that if the building
height variance is not granted it will have a huge impact on operational efficiencies. He stated that
spreading the campus would have an adverse effect on the hospital and the surrounding
neighborhood.
Mr. Heath Clarkston, President, Home Builders Association, 1420 Creek Trail Drive, spoke in
favor of this request. He explained that this is a significant private investment and it will create jobs
and drive economic development. Mr. Clarkson stated that this project will be an anchor for future
development for the city. He explained that the approximately 300 local members of the Home
Builders Association are in support of this project.
No one spoke in opposition to this request and no correspondence was received.
Mr. Barron gave the Planning Division staff report.
Jefferson City Board nfAdjustment
August Q.2O11
Ms. Young moved and Mr. Graham second to approve the requested variance of 60 feet to the
maximum height of buildings in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district in order to allow for a
building 120 feet in height. The motion passed 4-Owith the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Lacy, W1einhandt.Young
Mc Graham moved and K80. Young seconded to approve the requested variance of 88 feet tothe
maximum height of building mounted signs in order to erect a sign 120 feet above grade,
Mr. Meinhardt commented that the proposed sign is understated and very tastefully done.
The motion passed 4-0with the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Lacy, Meinhardt, Young
K8a. Young moved and Mr. Graham seconded to approve the requested variance of 480 square
feet to the maximum size of building mounted sign in order to allow for a 680 square foot wall
sign. The motion passed 4-8with the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Locy, Meinhandt.Young
Mc Graham moved and Ms. Young seconded to approve a variance of 380 square feet to the
maximum total size of building mounted signage in order to allow for a 680 square foot wall sign.
Mc Graham commented that this project could go in looking like the Columbia PWaU, which would
practically make the hospital dysfunctional and render the entire neighborhood dysfunctional. He
explained that this is a rational direction and therefore all of the findings have been met for the
requested variances.
The motion passed 4-Uwith the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Lacy, Meinhardt, Young
7. Miscellaneous Reports
Janice McMillan informed the Board of the recent reorganization of the Department of Community
Development into two departments.
Q. Other Business
Mr. Meinhendtwelcomed new member Katy Lacy.
Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 a.m.
Respectfully s bm