HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015-11-10 minutesMINUTES
JEFFERSON CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 10, 2015
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Wilma Partee, Chairwoman
Paul Graham
Andrew Hake
Matt Rimiller
Katy Lacy, Alternate
Robert Gammon, Alternate
Brad Schaefer
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Stacey Young, Vice -Chairman
COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT
Ken Hussey
STAFF PRESENT
Eric Barron, Senior Planner
Janice McMillan, Director of Planning & Protective Services
Bryan Wolford, Associate City Counselor
Diane Cary, Administrative Technician
ATTENDANCE RECORD
3 of 3
3 of 3
3of3
2 of 3
3of3
3of3
1 of 1
1 of 3
1. Call to Order and Introduction of Members, Ex -Officio Members and Staff
Chairwoman Partee called the meeting to order at 7:35 a.m. and introduced the Board members
and staff. A quorum was present to hear the items on the agenda. The following members
were designated to vote: For Case No. B15003 Wilma Partee, Paul Graham, Drew Hake, Matt
Rimiller, Robert Gammon. For Case No. B15004 Wilma Partee, Drew Hake, Matt Rimiller, Katy
Lacy, Robert Gammon. Those wishing to speak to the Board were sworn in.
2. Procedures Explained
Mr. Barron explained the procedures of the meeting and the following documents were entered
as exhibits for all items under consideration at the 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 affidavits 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
3. Adoption of Agenda
Mr. Graham moved and Mr. Hake seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion
passed 5-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Partee, Graham, Hake, Rimiller, Lacy
1
Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2015
4. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Meeting of July 14, 2015
Mr. Hake moved and Mr. Graham seconded to approve the minutes as written. The motion
passed 5-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Partee, Graham, Hake, Rimiller, Lacy
5. Communications Received
No correspondence had been received.
6. New Business — Public Hearing
Case No. B15003 — 1535 Fairgrounds Road; Conditional Use Permit for Cellular Tower.
Application filed by Porite Jefferson Corp, property owner, Jim Libey, authorized representative,
for a conditional use permit to construct a 150 feet tall telecommunication tower. The property
is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Fairgrounds Road and London Way and
is described as Lot 7 of Capital City Industrial Park (Cellusite LLC, Consultant).
Mr. Barron explained that Verizon Wireless, on behalf of the property owner, is requesting
approval of a conditional use permit to locate a 150 feet tall telecommunication tower near the
southwest corner of the property. He explained that the tower would be a monopole design with
a fenced compound at the base of the tower and that the construction drawings indicate that the
tower site is capable of accommodating 2 additional carriers. The property is zoned M-1 and the
tower would be located 148 feet from the nearest property line, which exceeds the required 100
foot setback, and approximately 650 feet from the nearest residential property.
Mr. Graham asked about any restrictive covenants that might be in place. Mr. Barron stated
that the Capital City Industrial Park subdivision, in which this property is located, has recorded
subdivision covenants and restrictions that restrict the use of the property within the subdivision
and the height of structures to 45 feet. Mr. Barron explained that while the City is not
responsible for enforcement of private subdivision covenants, staff will not issue a building
permit that is known to be in conflict with them. Mr. Barron explained that the covenants have a
mechanism for amendment that the property owner can pursue and that the staff
recommendation is that any conflicts with the covenants be resolved prior to building permit
issuance.
Mr. Derek McGrew, Cellusite LLC and agent for Verizon, spoke regarding the request. Mr.
McGrew stated that after much research looking for a tower site in this area, he found land that
could be leased in order to build a new cell tower and they are working through the subdivision
restrictions. He added that the tower will be a monopole tower with a fenced compound, will
meet the maximum height of 150 feet, and there are no government properties available in the
area, which are all requirements.
Mr. Rodney Jones, 3931 Scarborough Way, spoke in favor of the case. Mr. Jones stated that
cell coverage in his area is horrible, that the nearest tower is in Lohman, which is too far away,
and that a cell tower is needed.
No one spoke in opposition to the request.
Mr. Barron stated that the required findings appear to be met. The proposed telecommunication
tower meets the specific use requirements outlined in the Zoning Code. The tower is located in
an industrial area and the separation distance from nearby residential neighborhoods is enough
that visual impact should be minimal.
2
Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2015
Mr. Graham made a motion for approval of the proposed conditional use permit for a 150 feet
tall telecommunication tower subject to the condition that releases of the covenant be obtained
prior to installation of the tower. Mr. Hake seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Partee, Graham, Hake, Rimiller, Gammon
Mr. Graham excused himself at 8:10 a.m. because of being recused for the following case.
Case No. 815004 — 1024 Adams Street; Conditional Use Permit for Signage. Application
filed by Steven Lierman, property owner, for a conditional use permit to install a freestanding on
premise sign in a residential district. The property is zoned RA -2 High Density Residential and
is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Adams Street and Woodlawn Avenue.
The property is described as Lot 1 of Woodcrest Subdivision, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Mr. Barron explained that the property owner is requesting approval to place a freestanding sign
within the courtyard area in front of the building adjacent to Adams Street in order to identify
their building. He stated that the property is zoned RA -2 and that the proposed sign would
consist of two 5 feet tall brick columns with a roughly 4' by 9.5' double sided sign mounted
between the columns. He stated that the size of the sign would be approximately 38 square
feet and that proposed optional illumination of the sign would consist of an exterior light facing
each side of the sign with a maximum wattage of 60 watts.
Mr. Barron gave an overview of the history of prior Board of Adjustment actions for the property.
He stated that in 1987 the City had issued a sign permit for alterations to an existing monument
sign at the same location, erected in 1969, in order to light it. A neighboring property owner
objected to the sign and appealed the permit issuance to the Board of Adjustment. The Board
upheld the appeal and ruled both that the sign permit for modifications was improperly issued by
staff and the existing sign was never permitted by City Code, and therefore illegal. The sign
was removed by the property owner.
In April of 2007, an application for a conditional use permit was filed to install a 4' by 4' sign
attached to decorative lampposts within the courtyard area. The Board denied the request on a
vote of 3 in favor and 2 opposed. The property owner then reapplied for a 24 square feet
building mounted sign, which was approved by the Board at the June 2007 meeting.
Mr. Steve Lierman, applicant, spoke. He and his siblings own Stonebridge Senior Living. He
stated that all of their 13 facilities that they own have a sign similar to their request in the front
yard of the properties. He stated that the sign would not only help with visitors in coming to the
facility but also emergency vehicles, and that having a lighted sign would aid in helping people
find their facility. He stated that out of the 7 Findings that are required, 5 are stated as being
met in the staff report. Mr. Lierman stated that he did not understand why staff felt that the
design and size of the proposed sign is out of character with the historic nature of the
surrounding single family neighborhood. He stated that down the street is a nice neighborhood
park which has a sign that is similar in design as what he is proposing. Chairman Partee
responded by reminding Mr. Lierman that the Board could not speak regarding that issue, but
only to the issue at hand. Mr. Lierman stated that the second finding not met according to staff
pertains to lighting of the sign. Mr. Lierman stated that they did not have to have a sign lit, but it
would be helpful for those who come to visit at night. The lights proposed would be the same as
tiny 60 watt light bulbs, not spot lights, and regarding the location of the sign he stated that it
would be placed as far back as possible, instead of near the curb.
3
Minutes/Jefferson City Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2015
The Board asked Mr. Lierman several questions and he responded.
No one else spoke in favor of the request.
Several spoke in opposition to the request. The following 7 guests spoke.
• Kathy Frazier, 1023 Adams St.
She requested no commercial signs & no large signs. Would like the historic feel to
stay. Front bedroom receives a lot of light from the facility at night. Prefers less lighting.
Prefers no signs in the yard, but would accept sign on building.
• Alan Frazier, 1023 Adams St.
Stated that he uses blacked -out curtains because of the lights at night. He feels no one
has problems finding the facility and would accept a sign on the building.
• Christina Smith, 1021 Adams St.
Has front bedroom, prefers no added lighting. Does not like business district, would like
for it to remain a family area and keep its historical character.
• Robert Herman, 1005 Adams St.
Has lived here for 46 years. Would like to keep it a family and residential neighborhood.
Facility does not need a sign.
• Jim Bryant, 1002 Adams St.
Neighborhood is very important because he as well as his neighbors have lived here for
over 25 to 45 years. Nursing home has been a part of the neighborhood, however, he
has never heard of anyone having trouble finding the nursing home. Would accept a
sign on the wall and can be lighted.
• Jeanie Bryant, 1002 Adams St.
Area was spot zoned years ago without the neighbors' approval. Spot zoning is not
what the City likes to use, however, 1024 Adams Street was designated this in the
1960s. At that time the City did not provide a public hearing to allow the neighbors to
provide input. Sign code says a sign can be attached, not free standing. Ms. Bryant
submitted a petition that the neighbors had signed stating they did not want the free
standing sign or illumination.
• Patricia Pollock, 1001 Adams St.
She is concerned about the historical feel of the neighborhood. Signs are for
advertisement. Does not want the neighborhood to become commercialized.
Chairwoman Partee asked the Applicant if he would like to provide rebuttal testimony.
Mr. Lierman stated that he did not expect this much opposition to the sign proposal, and that his
facilities have always been able to blend into the neighborhoods. He stated that he is willing to
work with these neighbors and with the City. His intent is to make this as nice as possible and
he is hoping that both sides can work together and come to some kind of agreement.
The Chairwoman closed testimony.
Mr. Barron gave the Staff report. He stated that the staff analysis is that the required findings do
not appear to be met. The design and size of the sign would be out of character with the
historic nature of the adjacent residential neighborhood and the proposed lighting of the sign
would conflict with the residential area, where lighted signs are discouraged.
4
Minutes/.Jefferson City Board of Adjustment
November 10, 2015
Mr. Hake moved for approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit for an on premise
freestanding sign in a residential district to be placed parallel with Adams St as far back as
possible from the curb with the condition that if lighted in the future, a maximum of 60 watts may
be installed directed specifically at the front and back face of the sign. Mr. Rimiller seconded.
After discussion a roll call vote was taken.
The motion failed 1-4 with the following votes.
Mr. Rimiller: no
Ms. Partee: no
Mr. Hake: yes
Ms. Lacy: no
Mr. Gammon: no
7. Miscellaneous Reports.
There were none.
8. Other Business
Approval of 2016 meeting schedule:
Mr. Barron presented the option to the Board of changing the meeting time to the
evening. The Board agreed unanimously to keep their meetings in the morning.
Ms. Lacy moved for the adoption of the 2016 Meeting Calendar to continue as the 2"d
Tuesday of each month at 7:30 A.M. and was seconded by Mr. Hake. Motion passed
unanimously.
9. Adjournment
With no other business Chairwoman Partee adjourned the meeting at 9:10 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Cary
Administrative Technician
S