Loading...
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