Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20111011minutesMINUTES JEFFERSON CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 11, 2011 7:30 a.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Paul Graham Kevin Meinhardt, Chairman Wilma Partee, Vice Chairman Stacey Young Glenn Bonner, Alternate Drew Hake, Alternate Katy Lacy, Alternate BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Robert Dallmeyer, Jr. COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT David Griffith, City Council Liaison 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 5of5 6of7 5of7 5of7 4of7 6of7 3of3 3 of 7 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 was present to hear the items on the agenda. All regular members and alternate Drew Hake were designated to vote. 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 Ms. Partee moved and Ms. Young seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed 5-0 with the following votes: Aye: Graham, Hake, Meinhardt, Partee, Young 4. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Meeting of September 13, 2011 Mr. Hake moved and Ms. Partee seconded to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 5-0 with the following votes: Aye: Graham, Hake, Meinhardt, Partee, Young Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment October 11, 2011 5. Communications Received None. IM -4 6. New Business ® Public Hearing Case No. B11015 — 1204 St. Paul Street, Conditional Use Permit. Application filed by Ameren Missouri, property owner, Lou Ann Dollar, authorized representative, for a conditional use permit to expand an existing electrical substation in an RS -2 Low Density Residential zoning district. The property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of St. Paul Street and Columbus Street and is described as lots 220 through 232 and lot 253 of Wulferts Resubdivision of Outlot 101, Jefferson City, Missouri. Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to expand an electrical substation in an RS -2 zoning district. He stated that electrical substations are a conditional use of all zoning districts and expansions of existing substations require a conditional use permit. Mr. Barron explained that the electrical substation is currently enclosed by a chain link fence with a driveway access off of St. Paul Street. He stated that Ameren is proposing to increase the size of the fenced area and replace the chain link fence with a 10 foot tall acoustic fence. Mr. Barron explained that the purpose of the expansion is to accommodate the replacement of the existing substation equipment and to allow room for a mobile transformer that can provide temporary service should the need arise. Mr. James Jontry, Engineer for Distribution and Customer Substation Design, Ameren, 1901 Chouteau, St. Louis, Missouri, 63133, spoke regarding this request and explained that this project consists of removing all of the existing equipment at the Columbus substation. He stated that Ameren has reconfigured the system in Jefferson City and the existing equipment is no longer in service. Mr. Jontry explained the existing substation was the former Missouri Power and Light Station which has been in place for approximately 50 years. Mr. Graham commented that commercial enterprises on Ellis Boulevard are shielded from the public view by substantial vegetation. He inquired whether this substation could also be shielded from the public view. In response, Mr, Jontry explained that Ameren is proposing to enclose the substation with a 10 foot tall fence. Mr. Graham commented that the proposed fence is for safety purposes and noise purposes. He explained that he is more concerned with the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Ms. Partee inquired whether there will be any drilling or blasting that could be detrimental to the neighborhood. In response, Mr. Jontry explained that there would be drilling to install the foundation. Ms. Partee explained that she is concerned about the efforts to keep trees from possibly being damaged when the new foundation is built. Mr. Jontry explained that if there is damage to the trees now and in the future Ameren will replace them. Mr. Graham commented that this area is struck by lightning all of the time. He explained that he does not want to place restraints on Ameren with respect to controlling vegetation around this substation. Ms. Young inquired whether this facility is being expanded in terms of replacement or in terms of footage. In response, Mr. Jontry explained that the facility is being expanded in the sense that the fence boundary will be bigger. He stated that one of the reasons for this project is that the existing transformer is undersized. Mr. Jontry explained that the new transformer will provide more capacity. Ms. Young inquired whether there were attempts made for acquisition in a new location that is not zoned RS -2. In response, Mr. Jontry explained that Ameren did look at a different location, however, the cost of real estate is much higher than the cost to expand the existing site. Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment October 11.2011 K8c Hake inquired wheMlerAmo/en will build piers just for the equipment pad. In response, KAc Jontry explained that the equipment pads and the retaining wall will have drilled piers. Mr. Meinhaokoommenbad that the noahaha| submitted bythe applicant references landscaping. Heinquired ofstaff whether there will beplans horeview espart ofthe construction permit process. In response, Mr. Barron explained that if landscaping is u concern, the Board has the ability to place a specific requirement for landscaping. He stated that he is hesitant in recommending a specific type of tree because Amenon has certain guidelines that have to be followed in placing trees near electrical equipment. KAc Meinhorb commented that it will be difficult for the Board to define the landscaping component in this setting. He suggested that staff review the landscaping plans as part ofthe site plan approval process. K8c Scott Gondin, 1803 California, spoke in opposition to this request and explained that his home is at the end of the dead end California Street. He stated that there is a drainage ditch that runs along his property. Mr. Goodin explained that his mein concern is an increase inflow from the substation affecting his property and would like that ho be evaluated beforehand. He stated that he is an environmental specialist and that his specialty is water quality and hydrology. Mr Goodin explained that he has three streams on his property that could be affected bywater quality issues. He stated that water quality issues could depend upon the type of surface, whether it is impervious or semi -impervious or no hard surface or minimal honj surface. Mr. Goodin explained that it appears that activity iogoing oninpreparation for approval. Councilman Griffith left at 8:13 a.m. Ms. Portae inquired of which type of surface Ameran will be using. In response, yWc Jontry explained that inside the retaining wall area will be all rock for grounding and safety purposes. He stated that water is retained inside the retaining vvaU area. Mr. Jontry explained that there will not be on increase of any of the water flow off ofthe site. He stated part of the reason for building a retaining wall is to store atormvvator so that it does not affect the drainage area. Mr. Jontry explained that there is an increase of the semi -pervious area, which consists of limestone rock. Mr. MeinhooK inquired whether An1enen has e retainage system inside the retaining wall perimeter. In response, Mr. Jontry explained that abormwahurdrains into an interior drain and is then released outside. K80. Partoe inquired whether the runoff could impact Mr. Guodin'o property. In response. Mr. Jontry explained that the quantity of runoff that comes from Ameren's property now will be the same once the project isfinished. Mc Meinhandtpointed out that one thing that should be considered is that by increasing the footprint ofthe area there will be a flatter surface than what is there. He stated that with a flat slope you actually slow down the speed of the stormwater runoff which is a good thing in terms of erosion and stormwater control. Councilman Luebbertleft sd8:10a.m. W1a. Partee inquired of Mr. Goodin of what evidence he has that what Amenen in proposing will increase the runoff. In response, Mr. Goodin explained that if they put in a semi -pervious surface over soil that absorbs water, it is going to increase runoff. He stated that hewould like hydraulic evaluation done byeprofessional engineer. K8c Hake inquired whether Mr. Goodin would be agreeable to a stormwabardebandon system with a slow na|aeae mechanism. In response, K8c Goodin explained that as long as they have a Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment October 11, 2011 Page 4 Mr. Meinhardt pointed out that by increasing the footprint size there will be a flatter grade than what currently exists. Mr. Goodin stated that the water still has to go somewhere and it is going to go downhill and across his property. Mr. Meinhardt explained that since Ameren is flattening out more of the site, that will slow the velocity of the stormwater. Mr. Goodin stated that if they have a good stormwater system in place so it controls runoff and does not increase the velocity or volume, he is fine with that. He explained that he would like to see a rain garden or some type of wetland system to help the water slow down and percolate through and be cleaned before it is discharged. Ms. Partee inquired whether City staff will review that portion of their construction plan. In response, Mr. Barron explained that one of the things that the City Stormwater Engineer reviews is the increase in the rate of discharge of water from a site. He stated that Mr. Jontry testified that the rate of discharge is not to increase. Mr. Meinhardt explained that generally the City's stormwater regulations do not allow someone to discharge more water from a construction site than exists now. He stated that the City stormwater regulations require that if you create more runoff than what exists now you have to retain it and design a system that slows it down. No correspondence was received for this request. Mr. Barron gave the Planning Division staff report. Ms. Partee inquired whether City staff have taken into consideration any additional traffic that would be caused during the construction phase and if so have they found it is not going to be excessive. In response, Mr. Barron explained that staff do not typically do a traffic analysis for this type of use. He stated that traffic generated by a substation is minimal. Ms. Partee inquired of Mr. Jontry whether Ameren has done a traffic analysis. In response, Mr. Jontry explained that Ameren has not done a traffic study and that there will be efforts made to minimize any construction traffic impact to neighbors. Ms. Young inquired of the anticipated completion date for this project. In response, Mr. Jontry explained that the in-service date is June 1, 2012. He stated that they estimate three months for site construction. Mr. Meinhardt closed testimony at this time. Ms. Partee moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit to expand an electrical substation in an RS -2 zoning district subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction plans be reviewed by the City Stormwater Engineer to ensure that the release from the catch basin does not exceed what currently exists; 2. Any trees lost to homeowners during the construction phase be replaced by Ameren subject to that occurring within a five (5) year period of construction and subject to that being proven to have been caused by Ameren construction. Discussion: Mr. Graham explained that the Board can grant a permit but cannot make it contingent upon Ameren's being liable in the future. He stated that we actually invade the court system with that kind of motion. Ms. Partee explained that she is agreeable to amending her motion in ways that make it more palatable for the Board. Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment October 11, 2011 Ms. Young commented that she wants to make sure that upon completion of Ameren's project the homeowner impacted by this project does not have any further issues. Mr. Graham stated that he thinks the neighbor's recourse, if there are any damages, is to the courts and not the Board. He commented that various members of the Board have various levels of expertise on certain technical subjects. Mr. Graham expressed his concern that since he is an attorney, Board members seem to be deferring to him. He stated that he is uncomfortable voting on anything where he defers to the expertise of another member on this Board. Mr. Graham explained that it is not the way this Board should work. He stated that at the end of testimony we should be on an equal playing field with respect to the knowledge that we need to vote on something. Mr. Graham commented that this issue should be continued to a different meeting where the City's Stormwater Engineer can address us so that I am not deferring to somebody else on that issue. He stated that he would like to see City staff come back having conferred with Ameren on the landscaping issue. Mr. Graham explained that you cannot tell Ameren to put in trees that can be an electrical problem. He stated that we can end up with a facility that is landscaped better than the existing facility. Ms. Partee stated that she is agreeable with tabling this issue as it relates to stormwater drainage. She explained that she wanted to know for the record that Ameren gave testimony to a willingness to make homeowners whole. Ms. Partee stated that the general findings require the Board to consider those types of issues. She explained that she is curious to know about the pollutants that might be there. Mr. Barron explained that there are two separate issues, one involves landscaping and the other involves stormwater drainage. He stated that in regards to the stormwater drainage, we can get a representative of City staff to look at the stormwater drainage issues. Mr. Barron explained that it is his understanding, as the applicant testified, that there will be no increase in the volume of stormwater runoff. He stated that if there are additional stormwater requirements above and beyond what is normally required in the City Code that can be looked at by this body. Mr. Barron explained that if a property owner damages a tree on a neighboring property, that is generally handled between those two property owners. He stated that the Board can put a condition on the conditional use permit requiring the applicant to install landscaping. Mr. Graham commented that he has heard a number of times today that we have these regulations in respect to stormwater. He explained that once we issue the permit and once the facility is up the Board and the City will not have any jurisdiction or power to go out and take care of a problem after a problem has occurred. Mr. Graham commented that he believes that Ameren will control the stormwater, however, he does not know on the basis of the evidence whether that design will really do that. He explained that after this project is finished, a property owners only recourse will be under water law in the courthouse and they will not be able to come back to the Board and ask for the conditional use permit to be revoked. Mr. Graham stated that we have to get it right to protect the homeowners. Mr. Meinhardt reopened testimony at this time. Mr. Meinhardt inquired whether continuing this matter would impact Ameren's schedule. In response, Mr. Jontry explained that it will negatively impact the schedule. He stated that part of trying to get started in the fall months is unpredictable weather and it would push construction activity further into the winter months. Ms. McMillan inquired of the status of the construction plans. In response, Mr. Jontry explained that Ameren is currently finishing the design phase. Ms. McMillan inquired of the timeline for submittal of those plans. In response, Mr. Jontry explained that Ameren can get those to the City in about a week. Mr. Meinhardt closed testimony at this time. Min City Board ofAdjustment October 11.2U11 KAc Hi|ped explained that since there was no second the motion dies. He stated that this room is available for a meeting in two weeks. Mr. Meinhardt inquired whether the next meeting would be an aoh|a| 8oenj meeting orawork session. In response, KA/. Hi|peh explained that if the Board wants to vote on this matter it would need tnschedule apublic meeting. Ms. Partem commented that we need to hear both sides. She stated that she is not opposed to reviewing this but wants to hear what Mr. Goodin has to soy. N1e. Podee *mp|oinmj that the Board needs to know that the conditional use findings in Section 35.73.A.4d have been met. She stated that atthis point she cannot vote because she cannot say that the conditions have been met. K4/. Graham commented that we have a dub/ to protect Amen*n. the public and the neighbors. He stated that we do not have to get Mr. Goodin's agreement on anything. Mc Mainhardt inquired of Mc Jontry of the likelihood of being able to submit o plan in the next week. In response, Mr. Jontry explained that it is possible to submit plans in that timeframe. Mc MeinharMexplained that it may be e wise onnnk1erodon to continue this for two weeks or reschedule the meeting aaclose totwo weeks anpossible. Hastated that inthe meantime Amenen will submit a set of construction drawings that the City's Stormwater Engineer can review and make a determination. Mr. Mninhordt stated that Board will have some evidence to ns|y on. He reiterated that the original motion is dead and the Board will continue this application to o future meeting. Mr. Meinhardt explained that Staff will notify the Board and Applicants when that date hos been determined. 7. Miscellaneous Reports Q. Other Business A. Election of Officers Continued toOctober 25.2011. 9. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:54 a.m. JU, Anne Stratman Administrative Assistant