HomeMy Public PortalAbout20120911minutesMINUTES
JEFFERSON CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
September 11, 2012
7:30 a.m.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT ATTENDANCE RECORD
Wilma Partee, Vice Chairman 2 of 4
Paul Graham 3 of 4
Stacey Young 4 of 4
Drew Hake, Alternate 4 of 4
Katy Lacy, Alternate 3 of 4
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Robert Dallmeyer, Jr. 0 of 4
COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT
Bill Luebbert, City Council Liaison
STAFF PRESENT
Janice McMillan, Director, Planning & Protective Services
Drew Hilpert, City Counselor
Eric Barron, Senior Planner
Diane Cary, Administrative Technician
Before the hearing began, Vice Chairman Wilma Partee asked that those attending would take a moment
to remember Kevin Meinhardt, who had recently passed away.
1. Call to Order and Introduction of Members, Ex -Officio Members and Staff
Vice Chairman Partee called the meeting to order and introduced Board members and staff.
Board procedures were explained. Vice Chairman Partee 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 Drew Hake and Katy Lacy
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
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: Graham, Young, Hake, Lacy, Partee
4. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Meeting of April 10, 2012
Mr. Graham moved and Ms. Young seconded to approve the minutes as written. The motion
passed 5-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Young, Hake, Lacy, Partee
Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment
September 11, 2012
5. Communications Received
Correspondence was received for Case No. B12007.
6. New Business — Public Hearing
Case No. B12006111 Landwehr Hills Road; Setback Variance.
Application filed by Paul Stockman, property owner, for a 13 foot variance from the 25 foot rear
setback requirement in order to allow for a building addition to be 12 feet from the rear property
line (Section 35-51 Density and dimensional standards). The property is located on the east side
of Landwehr Hills Road 200 feet south of East McCarty Street and is described as Part of Lot 56
of Landwehr Hills Section 2 and part of the NE Quarter of Section 21, Township 44 North, Range
11 West, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained that the applicant wishes to construct an
addition to the rear of the building. The subject property is zoned M-1 Light Industrial. The
proposed building addition would utilize an existing retaining wall, recently reconstructed due to
its age, that had been in place since approximately 1990. The addition would be "in line" with the
rear line of an existing portion of the building. Mr. Barron explained that the area within the
retaining wall would be placed under roof, and would become part of the building. Therefore, it
would be subject to the normal 25' rear setback requirement for that district. The corner of the
retaining wall is close to the property line and would not meet that setback.
Mr. Paul Stockman, 111 Landwehr Hills Road, spoke regarding this request and explained that he
wanted to construct an addition to the rear of the building. This would make the building look
better and would give him extra space for lumber storage, etc.
No one spoke in opposition to this request.
Mr. Barron gave the Planning Division staff recommendation. He stated that the required findings
appear to be met. He stated that the building sits at an odd angle to the rear property line and a
rear yard is maintained behind much of the building. The building addition would be largely below
grade and there would be little impact to the neighboring property.
Mr. Hake asked about the roofing materials. Mr. Stockman stated there would be trusses and
plywood and a metal roof over the whole thing. It would be a shed configuration.
Mr. Hake asked if there were any drain issues. Mr. Stockman stated that the drainage would not
affect the neighbors.
Mr. Graham moved to approve the proposed variance in order to construct a building addition 12
feet from the rear property line. Mr. Graham added that all of the findings have been met. Ms.
Young seconded.
The motion passed 5-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Young, Hake, Lacy, Partee
Case No. B12007 —1028 and 1044 Emily Lane; Setback Variance.
Application filed by Dale Scheperle, property owner, for the following:
1. 1028 Emily Lane — An 11 foot variance from the 25 foot rear setback requirement in order to
allow for a rear setback of 14 feet (Section 35-51 Density and dimensional standards).
2. 1044 Emily Lane — A 14 foot variance from the 25 foot rear setback requirement in order to
allow for a rear setback of 11 feet (Section 35-51 Density and dimensional standards).
The properties are located on the west side of Emily Lane 500 feet north of Old Lohman Road
and are described as lots 13 and 14 of Emily Lane Subdivision Section Two. (Central Missouri
Professional Services, Consultant)
Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment
September 11, 2012
Mr. Barron described the proposal. The property consists of Lots 13 and 14 of Emily Lane
Subdivision, which was platted in 2009. Emily Lane Subdivision is zoned RA -1 High Density
Residential and is being developed with residential duplexes. There are 9 duplexes that have
been completed with several more under construction. The property owner intends to construct
duplex residential buildings on lots 13 and 14 that would be similar in scale and character to the
existing duplexes in the subdivision. Due to the odd shape of lots 13 and 14, the duplexes
would set closer to the rear lot line than the required 25 feet setback.
Mr. Barron explained that due to the topography of the area, the duplexes on the west side of
Emily Lane have retaining walls behind them. Each of these duplexes has an area of about 15
feet between the building and the retaining wall. Both lots 13 and 14 will require retaining walls
behind them as well, and the lots have already been graded in preparation for development with
an approximately 10 feet tall rock wall at the rear of both lots. Where the retaining walls behind
the other duplexes are located well away from the neighboring property, the retaining walls for
lots 13 and 14 would be located very close (within a few feet) of the neighboring property.
Mr. Barron noted that there is one finding that may not be met, that the requested variance will
not be unduly injurious to the use and enjoyment of the adjacent property. Due to the grade
difference with the neighboring property and necessary retaining wall, a large drop off at the
property line would be crated which could affect the neighboring property. The neighboring
property owner's correspondence that was received also states the concern about that drop off.
Mr. Barron stated that placing a condition that a fence be placed above the retaining wall could
help alleviate the concern about the drop off and meet the finding.
Vice Chairman Partee noted that the applicant's representative provided the Board with
materials prior to the beginning of the meeting.
Mike Bates, Central Missouri Professional Services, 2500 E. McCarty Street, spoke on behalf of
Mr. Dale Scheperle. Mr. Bates explained the photos that his company provided. He stated htat
the neighbor's property to the west is 400 feet deep, which is unusual by today's standards. He
stated that today they are usually around 150 feet deep. Mr. Bates explained that the layout of
the property, with a creek along the east side of the property and setbacks off of that creek,
didn't allow much flexibility in terms of lot layout. He mentioned that the duplex development
has 2 -car garages and has gone quite well. Mr. Bates stated that in regard to the City Staff s
recommendation, Mr. Scheperle is very receptive to putting a fence on top of the wall.
Mr. Dale Scheperle, property owner of 1028 & 1044 Emily Lane, spoke on his behalf. Mr.
Scheperle explained the grade issue and the excavation process of Lots 13 and 14.
Correspondence in opposition to this request was received from the following:
Bill and Keely Wise, 4710 Old Lohman Road, Jefferson City, MO 65109
Mr. Hake questioned the way the staffs recommendation of the motion was worded - the
wording that restricts the method of replacement of the fence to the developer. After discussion
Mr. Graham stated that he would add the words "or upon" to the motion. Mr. Hake agreed to
that change.
Mr. Eric Barron gave the Planning Division staff recommendation.
Mr. Graham moved to approve the proposed variance for lot 13 in order to construct a building
14 feet from the rear property line, with the following condition: a fence with a minimum height of
4 feet shall be constructed between or upon the top of the retaining wall and the neighboring
property line along the length of the rear property line of lot 13.
Motion was seconded by Ms. Young.
Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment
September 11, 2012
The motion passed 5-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Young, Hake, Lacy, Partee
Mr. Graham moved to approve the proposed variance for lot 14 in order to construct a building
11 feet from the rear property line, with the following condition: a fence with a minimum height
of 4 feet shall be constructed between or upon the top of the retaining wall and the neighboring
property line along the length of the rear property line of lot 14.
Motion was seconded by Ms. Young.
The motion passed 5-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Graham, Young, Hake, Lacy, Partee
7. Miscellaneous Reports
None.
8. Other Business
None.
9. Adjourn
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Cary
Administrative Technician