Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20120410minutesMINUTES JEFFERSON CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 10, 2012 7:30 a.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Kevin Meinhardt, Chairman Paul Graham Stacey Young Glenn Bonner, Alternate Drew Hake, Alternate Katy Lacy, Alternate BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Robert Dallmeyer, Jr. Wilma Partee, Vice Chairman 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 Shane Wade, Civil Engineer II Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant Diane Cary, Administrative Technician ATTENDANCE RECORD 3 of 3 2of3 3 of 3 3of3 3of3 2of3 0of3 1 of 3 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 alternates Glenn Bonner and 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 Mr. Graham moved and Ms. Young seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed 5-0 with the following votes: Aye: Bonner, Graham, Hake, Meinhardt, Young 4. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Meeting of December 13, 2011 Mr. Hake moved and Mr. Bonner seconded to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed 5-0 with the following votes: Aye: Bonner, Graham, Hake, Meinhardt, Young Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment Page 2 April 10, 2012 5. Communications Received Correspondence was received for Case Nos. B12002 and B12004. 6. New Business — Public Hearing Case No. B12002 — 2632 Southridge Drive; Conditional Use Permit for Water Tower. Application filed by Cole County Public Water Supply District #2 for a conditional use permit to construct a water tower on property zoned RU Rural. The property is located on the north side of Southridge Drive two-thirds of a mile west of Vieth Drive where the road ends at the Highway 179 right of way. The property is described as part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 44 North, Range 12 West, Jefferson City, Missouri. (Bartlett and West, Consultant) Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a water tower in a RU Rural zoning district and that the stated purpose of the water tower is to provide service to the future St. Mary's Hospital. He stated that the subject property was annexed into the City of Jefferson as part of the Route C/Capital Hills voter approved annexation in 2007. Mr. Barron explained that the water tower is proposed to be approximately 160 feet tall and would be painted white with no logo or signage. He stated that a 10 foot tall security fence would surround the tower site and a paved driveway access off of Southridge Drive would be constructed. Mr. Barron explained that a well house would also be located within the fenced enclosure. Mr. Breck Summerford, Bartlett and West, 1719 Southridge Drive, Suite 100, spoke regarding this request and explained that they intend to start construction later this summer and complete the project by fall of 2013. He stated that a water line will be installed in conjunction with this project and will tie into the well tower in order to provide services to the hospital. Mr. Summerford explained that the capacity of the proposed tank is 500,000 gallons. He stated that they do not anticipate auxiliary generators at this time. Mr. Summerford explained that the proposed water tower will increase the capacity of the water system in the area in order to provide domestic and fire protection services necessary for the hospital facility. He stated that the existing facility that serves this area does not meet the requirements for fire protection. The following individuals spoke in favor of this request: David Cheese, Director of Materials Management, St Mary's Health Center, 100 St. Mary's Medical Plaza Mike Bates, Central Missouri Professional Services, 2500 E. McCarty Street No one spoke in opposition to this request. Correspondence was received from the following individuals: Brent VanConia, President, St. Mary's Health Center, 100 St. Mary's Medical Plaza Ray Wadley on behalf of Margaret Wadley, 2623 Southridge Drive Mr. Hake moved and Mr. Graham seconded to approve the conditional use permit to construct a water tower. Mr. Meinhardt stated that all of the findings have been met. The motion passed 5-0 with the following votes: Aye: Bonner, Graham, Hake, Meinhardt, Young Case No. B12003 — 3219 Missouri Boulevard; Signage Variance. Application filed by T&D Properties of JC LLC dba Corwin Hyundai -Nissan, property owner, Drew Corwin, authorized representative, for a variance from the maximum number of freestanding signs to allow for two freestanding signs on the property (Section 3-4.A.2.a). The property is located on the south side of Missouri Boulevard 1000 feet west of S. Ten Mile Drive and is described as part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 44 North, Range 12 West, Jefferson City, Missouri. (Mid-America Sign Works, Consultant) Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment April 10, 2012 Page 3 Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained that the subject property consists of the Corwin Hyundai -Nissan car dealership. He stated that an existing freestanding post sign advertising the "Hyundai" portion of the dealership is located on the Missouri Boulevard frontage. Mr. Barron explained that the property owner is proposing to erect a second freestanding post sign advertising the "Nissan" portion of the dealership. He stated that the Advertising and Sign Code allows for one freestanding sign per street or highway frontage. Mr. Barron explained that the proposed sign would meet sign code requirements pertaining to permitted signage area and height, but would exceed the permitted limit of one freestanding sign per frontage. He stated that the Advertising and Sign Code underwent modifications in July, 2011. Mr. Barron explained that prior to these modifications the code permitted multiple post signs along a property frontage as long as there was not more than one post sign for every 100 feet. He stated that the proposal fails to meet the following findings: (1) there is no evidence of topography or existing buildings interfering with usual visibility and; (2) there is no evidence that the proposal is in keeping with the general spirit and intent of the sign code. He stated that there is also no evidence that circumstances unique to this property necessitate the proposed variance. Mr. Tim Sigmund, Attorney, 305 E. McCarty Street, Suite 300, spoke on behalf of T&D Properties of JC, LLC and Corwin Hyundai -Nissan. Mr. Sigmund explained that Corwin Hyundai -Nissan and the property owner are asking for this variance based on the need to market and advertise the Nissan dealership. He stated that the City indicated that this proposal does not meet the required findings based on two specific issues: (1) the current ordinance only allows one free standing sign per street frontage; and (2) the topography of existing buildings along Missouri Boulevard do not interfere with the visibility of that sign or property. Mr. Sigmund explained that it was mentioned that another dealership along Missouri Boulevard had two signs. He stated that Corwin acquired the Nissan franchise formerly located at Capitol City Chrysler and removed the sign. Mr. Sigmund explained that this sign does not violate the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He stated that as a person travels down Missouri Boulevard each dealership tends to get lower in elevation. Mr. Sigmund explained that the Nissan building is the lowest of all dealerships along Missouri Boulevard. He stated that the Nissan dealership sits lower as compared to Missouri Boulevard and as compared to Highway 50. Mr. Sigmund explained that the visibility from Highway 50 makes it difficult to locate the dealership due to the nature of the topography. He stated that a sign would allow potential buyers that are not familiar with the area to locate the dealership from Highway 50. Mr. Drew Corwin, 3219 Missouri Boulevard, spoke regarding this request and explained that the actual distance between the existing Hyundai sign and the proposed Nissan sign is 60 feet. He stated that when a person is coming from the east and heading west on Highway 50 it is difficult to see the Nissan sign on the building. Mr. Corwin explained that it is confusing for current and potential customers looking for the Nissan store. He stated the proposed sign was the free standing pole sign previously at Capitol City Chrysler which was removed in November of 2011. Mr. Hake inquired whether the Nissan sign could be put on the same pole as the Hyundai sign. In response, Mr. Corwin explained that the Hyundai and Nissan manufacturers will not allow another competitor's sign on the same pole. No one spoke in opposition to this request and no correspondence was received. Mr. Barron gave the Planning Division staff report. Mr. Hake inquired whether a sign can be put on top of the building. In response, Mr. Barron explained that roof mounted signs are not permitted. He stated that the issue is specific to the free standing Nissan sign. Mr. Sigmund explained that a building mounted sign will still not give the visibility the brand desires in relation to marketing the property. He stated that a pole sign will alleviate the visibility issue in regards to the building mounted sign. Mr. Sigmund explained that potential customers that are not familiar with this area are coming from other communities in Central Missouri and from around the state. Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment April 10, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Graham moved and Ms. Young seconded to approve the proposed sign variance for 3219 Missouri Boulevard. Mr. Meinhardt commented that this is a difficult case because on the surface it is clear that the ordinance allows one sign per frontage. He stated that he understands how a manufacturer does not want to be on the same sign as a competitor. Mr. Meinhardt explained that he agrees with Mr. Sigmund that you can barely read the signage on the building. He stated that they will be at a competitive disadvantage with no pole sign for the Nissan dealership. Mr. Meinhardt explained that there is a topography challenge in that the building is lower in elevation and sits further back which makes reading signage on the building difficult. He stated that the only finding in question is the one that pertains to the general spirit and intent of the advertising and sign code. Mr. Graham commented that the finding must be that the topography or existing buildings interfere with usual visibility. He explained that we do not need to make a finding that there are significant topographical challenges. Mr. Graham stated that with respect to the other finding that the variance be in keeping with the general spirit and intent of the advertising and sign code, I do not know how anyone would ever meet this finding for a variance. He explained that every time a second sign is put up or is under consideration the intent of this ordinance will have been challenged. He stated that he felt both findings have been met. Mr. Meinhardt commented that we are not setting a precedent by allowing two signs. He stated that most cases we deal with are asking for an exception. With no additional discussion, the motion passed 5-0 with the following votes: Aye: Bonner, Graham, Hake, Meinhardt, Young Case No. B12004 — 1431 Edgevale Road; Variance. Application filed by Thomas and Shelly Procter, property owners, for a variance from conditions applicable to accessory buildings to allow for a swimming pool to be constructed on the lot in absence of a principal building (Section 35- 40.A). The property is located on the north side of Edgevale Road 350 feet west of Engelwood Drive and is described as lot 57 of Engelwood Subdivision. (Central Missouri Professional Services, Consultant) Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained that the property consists of a vacant lot owned by Thomas and Shelly Proctor. He stated that the property owners are requesting a variance in order to construct a swimming pool on the vacant lot. Mr. Barron explained that accessory structures such as swimming pools and garages are not permitted on a lot in absence of a primary structure. He stated that construction of swimming pools is common in residential areas, however, this particular case involves the construction of a pool on a neighboring lot rather than on the same lot as the house. Mr. Barron explained that the property owner could potentially replat the two lots into a single lot by filing a subdivision plat with the Planning and Zoning Commission, but this course of action would negate the possibility of utilizing the lot as a separate building lot in the future. He stated that the swimming pool is proposed to be located behind the required 25' front setback line from Edgevale Road and would be on the side of the property adjacent to the property owner's house. Mr. Barron explained that a stormwater drainage easement and sanitary sewer easement along the border between the two lots negates the possibility of locating the swimming pool any closer to the house. He stated that a buffer consisting of a row of evergreen trees would help screen the view of the pool from Edgevale Road and a four (4) foot tall fence would enclose the pool. Mr. Barron explained that the proposed location of the swimming pool is within an area that has to potential to flood if the adjacent stormwater system is overwhelmed. He stated that final site design of the swimming pool should address this stormwater issue, and the final location and/or elevation of the swimming pool may change in order to address the stormwater concerns. Mr. Mike Bates, Central Missouri Professional Services, 2500 E. McCarty Street, spoke regarding this request and explained that the pool location has been governed by the location of the sanitary sewer easement and the stormwater easement. He stated that the elevation of the pool may change in order to address any stormwater concerns. Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment April 10, 2012 Page 5 Mr. Tom Proctor, 1431 Edgevale Road, spoke regarding this request and explained that the proposed pool is above ground with a concrete deck. He stated that the fence will be four (4) feet tall with a latch. Mr. Proctor explained that from the back of their house to the creek is approximately 20 feet. He stated that the proximity of the creek eliminates the ability to have a pool in their backyard. Mr. Proctor explained that they visited with their neighbors that are in direct sight line of the proposed pool. The following individuals spoke in opposition to this request: Kay Finnell, 1736 Brookside Boulevard Julie Stotlemeyer, 1430 Edgevale Road The following concerns were expressed by those individuals speaking in opposition: 1. A pool on an open lot will deter from the property value of the subdivision; 2. Stormwater pools on Edgevale Road to where residents are constantly cleaning out the storm drains; 3. Where will backwash go when they are cleaning their pool; 4. Since this is an open lot there will be privacy concerns; 5. Will the buffer of evergreen trees be appropriate to screen the pool from view of the neighbors and will it be maintained in order to grow to its full potential. Correspondence in opposition to this request was received from the following individuals: Julie Stotlemeyer, 1430 Edgevale Road Charlotte Baclesse, 1431 Springdale Terrace Mr. Proctor referred to the pictures included in the correspondence from Ms. Julie Stotlemeyer. He explained that on street parking will not be an issue as the vehicles and equipment shown in the pictures belonged to other neighbors or people working in the neighborhood. He stated that the camper is located on the playground area. Mr. Barron gave the Planning Division staff report. Mr. Meinhardt inquired of how the property owner would drain their pool since there is no sanitary sewer drain on the site. In response, Mr. Wade explained that the property owner should be able to tie into a sanitary sewer line. Mr. Meinhardt inquired whether this project would require an engineered stormwater plan. In response, Mr. Barron explained that final site design should be coordinated with the Stormwater Division in order to ensure that stormwater concerns are addressed. Mr. Meinhardt inquired whether a buffer will be required since it is part of the application. In response, Mr. Barron explained that a row of evergreen trees would help to screen the view of the pool from Edgevale Road and a four (4) foot tall fence would be required. Mr. Proctor explained that the fence will consist of poly plastic materials and will meet the minimum height requirement of four (4) feet. Ms. Young commented that the minimum fence height requirement is an issue because of privacy concerns voiced by those speaking in opposition. She explained that because of the elevation of the street, motorists will be looking on top of the pool as they come down the street. Ms. Young stated that she is not sure that the four (4) foot height requirement is adequate. Mr. Meinhardt inquired whether the applicant would be opposed to a higher fence along the street line. In response, Mr. Proctor stated that they are not opposed to any recommendations. Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment April 10, 2012 Page 6 Mr. Meinhardt moved to approve the proposed variance in order to permit the construction of a swimming pool on a lot in absence of a primary structure subject to the following conditions: 1. Coordination of final site design with the Stormwater Division. 2. Recording of a document notifying future owners that Lot 57 cannot be sold as an individual lot separate from Lot 56 (1435 Edgevale Rd.) as long as the swimming pool is in place. Mr. Hake amended the first condition to include that the design drawings for code compliance relating to buffers and enclosures be approved by City Staff. Mr. Bonner seconded the amended motion. Discussion: Mr. Graham expressed a concern with Condition No. 2 where a document is to be recorded indicating that the owners of the house cannot sell the lot with the swimming pool separate from the house. He stated that hypothetically if the property owners do not pay their contractor those contractors will get a mechanics lien against one lot. Mr. Graham explained that if the mechanics lien is perfected that property will be sold separately on the courthouse door regardless of any restriction that may be recorded as it is legally described. He stated that he cannot vote for something that he thinks will not be effective legally. Mr. Graham explained that this will have to be replatted or we will have something that is out of our jurisdiction. Mr. Hilpert left at 9:15 a.m. Mr. Barron explained that the purpose of the recording is not to have a lien or any type of document that will prevent the swimming pool. He stated that it is simply to give any future property owner proper notice that this is a unique situation. Mr. Graham explained that he does not object to the condition in that regard. He stated that he is not being critical of the motion or condition. Mr. Graham explained that he is concerned whether these properties will be marketable in terms of title searches. He suggested continuing this matter to a future meeting for further review. Mr. Meinhardt inquired whether the Board can withdraw the motion or make a new motion and leave that stipulation out. Mr. Graham reiterated that it is not his job to protect the integrity of the title of their property. Mr. Nickolaus arrived at 9:20 a.m. Mr. Nickolaus suggested rephrasing Condition No. 2 to say that the pool could only be maintained so long as there was ownership. Mr. Graham commented that is not going to take care of the problem with the builders. He explained that the hypothetical builder who hypothetically does not get paid and forecloses on his mechanics lien owns that lot and swimming pool now separate from the property next door. Mr. Nickolaus stated that he would not be able to maintain it as a swimming pool. He explained that the contractor would own the lot and can tear out the swimming pool. Mr. Meinhardt stated that we have two choices, we can either vote on the motion and the second or we can withdraw that motion, start over or continue this matter to a future meeting. Mr. Graham explained that what troubles him is that he is called upon to make a choice about how he will vote on the basis of the law. He stated that should not be his job to be concerned about his jurisdiction in this regard. Mr. Graham explained that we are confined to looking at whether the findings can be met. In my opinion the findings are met. He stated that there is still a certain amount of discretion that we have in whether we will grant it or not. Mr. Graham explained that he does not Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment April 10, 2012 Page 7 think that discretion should be taken into consideration or even consider legal concerns. He stated that he is satisfied to move forward with this matter and vote on it today. With no additional discussion, the motion passed 5-0 with the following votes: Aye: Bonner, Graham, Hake, Meinhardt, Young Case No. B12005 — 2229 Christy Drive; Conditional Use Permit for Asphalt Plant. Application filed by Land Investments LLC, property owner, to establish an asphalt plant on property zoned C-2 General Commercial. The property is located on the east side of Christy Drive one-half mile north of Highway B and is described as part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 23 and part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 44 North, Range 12 West, Jefferson City, Missouri. (Central Missouri Professional Services, Consultant) Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained that the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to operate an asphalt plant on the subject property. He stated that the subject property consists of over 50 acres and has been operated as a quarry for at least 40 years. Mr. Barron explained that the property is zoned C-2 General Commercial and the operation of an asphalt plant in a C-2 zoning district requires a conditional use permit. He stated that the proposed asphalt plant would be operated by Jefferson Asphalt and would be located on the western side of the property toward Christy Drive and away from adjacent properties. Mr. Chris Yarnell, General Manager, Jefferson Asphalt, PO Box 104868, spoke regarding this request. Mr. Yarnell explained that there was an asphalt plant in this location in approximately 2007 or 2008. He stated that it takes approximately one year to set up a plant and that this is a temporary location until the next quant' is open. Mr. Mike Bates, Central Missouri Professional Services, 2500 E. McCarty Street, spoke regarding this request and gave a brief history of the subject property. Mr. Bates explained that the quant' owners are interested in redeveloping the property once the quarry has been mined. Mr. Steve Lutz, 2215 Christy Drive, expressed concerns regarding this request. Mr. Lutz stated that he does not oppose the rock quant' or the asphalt plant. He explained that a rock wall on his property suffered damage when the previous rock quarry was in operation and does not want the same thing to happen again. Mr. Lutz stated that air and dust pollution needs to be controlled when blasting. Mr. Yarnell addressed Mr. Lutz's concerns and explained that the technology with the new plant is much greater to control air and dust pollution. He stated that the Department of Natural Resources requirements are very stringent. Mr. Bates commented that he will take Mr. Lutz's concerns into consideration and will try to monitor the blasting. No correspondence was received. Mr. Barron gave the Planning Division staff report. Mr. Graham moved and Mr. Hake seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit to operate an asphalt plant. Mr. Meinhardt stated that all of the findings have been met. He reopened testimony in order to hear additional comments from Mr. Lutz. Mr. Lutz commented that he has lost sales on his house because of the cliff on the edge of his property. He requested that the quarry company put up a chain link fence along the top of the cliff. Mr. Meinhardt explained to Mr. Lutz that his request is not a part of this discussion. He suggested that Mr. Lutz speak with the quarry company. Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment Page 8 April 10, 2012 With no additional discussion, the motion passed 5-0 with the following votes: Aye: Bonner, Graham, Hake, Meinhardt, Young 7. Miscellaneous Reports None. a. Other Business Mr. Graham moved and Ms. Young seconded to reschedule the November 13, 2012, Board of Adjustment meeting to November 20, 2012 in order to accommodate Veteran's Day, a City Holiday. The motion passed 5-0 with the following votes: Aye: Bonner, Graham, Hake, Meinhardt, Young 9. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:48 a.m. RTctfully ubmitted, Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant