Board of Adjustment

City of Columbia, Missouri Meeting Minutes Board of Adjustment Tuesday, May 10, 2016 Council Chamber Regular Columbia City Hall 7:00 PM 701 E. Broadway I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Clithero called the meeting to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. Those members attending included Dennis Hazelrigg, Rex Campbell, Philip Clithero, Paul Girouard and Janet Hammen. Also attending were the Deputy City Clerk, Megan Eldridge, Development Services Manager, Pat Zenner, and Assistant City Counselor, Ryan Moehlman. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by Mr. Hazelrigg and a second by Mr. Campbell. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft April 12, 2016 Minutes The minutes from the regular meeting of April 12, 2016 were approved as submitted on a motion by Mr. Hazelrigg and a second by Mr. Campbell. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following cases, properly advertised, were considered. All persons testifying were duly sworn by the Deputy City Clerk. CASE NO. 1921 - A request by Broadway Crossings II for a variance to the sign ordinance by allowing wall signage that exceeds the maximum square feet permitted on property located on the north side of Trimble Road, between Broadway Bluffs Drive and Brickton Road (Parcel Nos. 17-402-00-13-003.00 01 and 17-119-00-07-002.00 01). (Tabled at the May 10, 2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting.) Chair Clithero explained that the applicant had requested to table this item to the June 14, 2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting. Ms. Hammen made a motion to table Case No. 1921 to the June 14, 2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hazelrigg and approved unanimously by voice vote. CASE NO. 1918 - A request by B-Sib, LLC d/b/a Parkade Center, for a variance to the sign ordinance by allowing exterior signs for suites without an exterior wall on property located at 601 Business Loop 70 West. (Tabled at the May 10, 2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting.) Chair Clithero explained that the applicant had requested to table this item to the June 14, 2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting. City of Columbia, Missouri Page 1 Printed on 6/17/2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 10, 2016 Mr. Hazelrigg made a motion to table Case No. 1918 to the June 14, 2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Girouard and approved unanimously by voice vote. CASE NO. 1920 - A request by Central Electric Power Cooperative for a conditional use permit to allow single pole support structures as part of an electric utility radio network on property located at 3882 Clark Lane (Parcel No. 17-213-00-00-003.00 01) and 6130 Brown Station Road (Parcel No. 12-503-00-00-008.00 01). Chair Clithero opened the public hearing. John Roark, an attorney with offices at 111 S. Ninth Street, appeared on behalf of Central Electric Power Cooperative and Boone Electric. He stated Central Electric Power Cooperative was a rural electric cooperative with transmission lines across central Missouri and noted they owned two substation sites within the City of Columbia where they interconnected with the City of Columbia and Boone Electric. He mentioned Boone Electric was a distribution rural electric cooperative and one of eight distribution rural electric cooperatives that owned Central Electric Power Cooperative. Andrew Petri with Boone Electric Cooperative, offices at 1413 Range Line Street, stated Boone Electric wanted to place two utility poles on two substation sites owned by Central Electric Power Cooperative that would be used for private communications for their utility operations. The utility poles would be 85 feet tall with a single antenna and the pole would be set in the ground 10.5 feet, so the total height would be slightly less than 80 feet. Both sites would be identical in appearance; however the Pine Grove substation at the Clark Lane site required a setback with a 1-to-1 ratio since it abutted residential property. He commented that they had revised the site plan that had been originally submitted and noted the revised site plan had a farther setback. They would be unable to meet the 1-to-1 ratio for the setback due to the site’s parameters and safety with the substation fencing. He commented that no structures would be hit if the pole came down, and stated if the pole came down due to an act of nature there would be larger problems. The equipment would meet all applicable Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards and applications. He noted the structures would not be readily climbable without specific training and equipment. There would be no FAA requirement for lighting on the structures due to the height of the poles, and advertising would be prohibited on the structures. The subject properties were substation sites and the proposed poles would be one of many poles already existing onsite. The poles would be brown wooden poles identical to the equipment already onsite. He stated there would be no screening on either site for accessibility reasons and because the screening would likely draw more attention. He stated there was currently gravel off -street parking located onsite and mentioned there would be no additional parking for this proposal. Ms. Hammen understood the proposed pole would not be placed where staff had suggested and asked if it would be placed farther from the original proposal. Mr. Petri replied that they had tried to move the pole in the direction indicated in the staff report, but it was not possible due to existing development. He noted they would have to place the pole inside the substation’s fence line on top of the transformer. Ms. Hammen asked if these poles were located at all of their substations. Mr. Petri replied they were. Ms. Hammen understood the proposed poles did not currently exist. Mr. Petri stated the proposed poles would be additional poles. Ms. Hammen understood the proposed poles would be communication poles and would be different from the other poles. She asked if the use of the proposed poles was located on other sites. Mr. Petri replied the proposed poles would be a dedicated wood structure with an antenna. He stated he did not know if City of Columbia, Missouri Page 2 Printed on 6/17/2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 10, 2016 there were similar poles at their other sites and noted many of the existing poles would be the same height as the proposed poles. Ms. Hammen asked if the use of the proposed poles would be needed at the applicant ’s other sites. Mr. Petri replied there was a potential for that. Ms. Hammen pointed out that the second to last sentence of the first paragraph in a letter dated April 11, 2016 to the Board of Adjustment in the Board’s packet stated neither site would not allow for any co-location with commercial carriers, public networks, cellular networks, etc. Mr. Petri apologized for the double negative and clarified that third party cellular entities and anyone other than Boone Electric Cooperative, Central Electric Power Cooperative, or Columbia Water & Light would not be allowed on the structures. Mike Bax with Central Electric Power Cooperative, offices at 2106 Jefferson Street, Jefferson City, stated they had worked with Mr. Petri to place the poles in safe and accessible locations on their substations that would not interfere with the operation of the transmission system. He noted they had done similar installations for cooperatives in other locations and mentioned they had placed similar poles for their two -way radio systems and used this type of structure since they were familiar with it. There being no further comment, Chair Clithero closed the public hearing. Mr. Zenner stated this was a quasi-governmental entity that was proposing telecommunication-like improvements on their substation site. The applicable sections of the City’s telecommunication regulations and zoning requirements for the subject properties required the applicant to appear before the Board. The proposal would be solely for the applicant’s use and there would be no leasing. City staff had discussed the setback issues of the Clark Lane site with Boone Electric. The nearest residential structure would be over 130 feet away from the proposed pole’s original location and the proposed pole being an additional 11 feet from the west property line moved the pole farther away. He commented that the property to the south of the Clark Lane site was undeveloped and mentioned that it would probably not be developed since it was encumbered by electrical utility overhead lines and was located directly on the Interstate . He stated the proposal did not comply with the City Code and commented that based upon the efforts of Boone Electric, the Board could consider that a hardship. He noted that according to the revised site plan for the Clark Lane site, it appeared a variance of about 34 feet would be needed for the setback on the west property line and a variance of about 23 feet would be needed for the setback on the south property line in order to meet the required 80 foot setback. He mentioned that although the proposed poles would be a utility pole, staff considered them to be a stealth structure since a single omni -directional whip antenna would be placed on top. The antenna would be very non -descript and small in diameter and would probably not be seen from the Interstate and Clark Lane. He noted the box would be mounted on the pole, which further minimized the need for screening around the base of the pole. He agreed that screening would compromise the applicant ’s ability to maintain the pole and might draw more attention to it. City staff would likely be revising standards in the City Code to exempt electric utilities and other public entities regulated by the public service authority from going through this process in order to provide this type of connection. He commended Boone Electric for working with the City and stated he was satisfied with the quality of the proposal. He noted the Brown Station Road site did not comply with the landscaping and the screening, but other standards had been met. The property adjacent to the Brown Station Road site was industrial, so setbacks would not be required. He stated that the City Code was clear about setbacks in regard to residential property or zoning and commented that the Board had discretion to modify to the setback for the proposed tower. He recommended the Board waive the security fencing and landscaping that was required by Section 29-21.3 of the City Code, City of Columbia, Missouri Page 3 Printed on 6/17/2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 10, 2016 and address the setback issue on the Clark Lane site. Ms. Hammen understood the Brown Station Road site had a C-P zoning designation. She asked if the site had been zoned C-P at the time the substation was put in and whether that had any bearing on this proposal. Mr. Zenner replied that telecommunication towers were permissible in the C-P zoning district subject to a conditional use permit . The C-P zoning district had been applied with the property located to the northwest of the subject site, and there did not appear to be any specific restriction regarding the uses or setback requirements for this particular site. He noted there was a private access drive to industrial property along the southwest side of that substation site, however the tower falling across someone else’s property that was commercially or industrially zoned was not a concern of the City Code. Chair Clithero asked if the Board needed to vote on each subject property separately. Mr. Moehlman replied they did not and noted they could go into specifics on a case by case basis. Mr. Moehlman stated the standards for a conditional use permit was determining whether or not the proposal fit with public health and safety. The Board should consider whether the towers were within a geographic area necessary to meet the applicant ’s engineering requirements regarding shared use, which were no longer applicable under federal law. He mentioned the Board should also consider if the applicant had provided sufficient evidence regarding whether the tower would be available for use by others and noted the applicant had indicated that the towers would not be available for others. He recommended the Board consider the waivers to the security and fencing and noted that could be addressed for both sites in one motion unless the Board desired to split those. He stated the Board could look at the waivers to the setback for the Clark Lane site. He asked if setback waivers would be required for the Brown Station Road site. Mr. Zenner replied they would not. Mr. Moehlman stated once the waivers were decided on the Board could go into approving the conditional use permit. Mr. Hazelrigg made a motion to waive the landscaping, screening, and fencing requirements on the Brown Station Road and Clark Lane properties and to waive the setback requirements on the Clark Lane property as shown on the revised site plan submitted by the applicant. Mr. Moehlman stated the site plan would be marked as Exhibit A and suggested the motion be amended to approve the setbacks as shown on Exhibit A. Mr. Hazelrigg was agreeable to the amended motion. The motion made by Mr. Hazelrigg to waive the landscaping, screening, and fencing requirements on the Brown Station Road and Clark Lane properties and to approve the setbacks on the Clark Lane property as shown on Exhibit A was seconded by Mr. Campbell. CASE NO. 1920 VOTE RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: VOTING YES: HAZELRIGG, CAMPBELL, CLITHERO, GIROUARD, HAMMEN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. The waiver of the landscaping, screening, and fencing requirements of Section 29-21.3 for the Brown Station Road and Clark Lane properties and the setbacks for the Clark Lane property as shown on Exhibit A was approved as requested. Mr. Hazelrigg made a motion to approve the conditional use permit for both the Clark Lane and the Brown Station Road sites subject to the approved waivers. The motion was seconded by Mr. Campbell. City of Columbia, Missouri Page 4 Printed on 6/17/2016 Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 10, 2016 CASE NO. 1920 VOTE RECORDED AS FOLLOWS: VOTING YES: HAZELRIGG, CAMPBELL, CLITHERO, GIROUARD, HAMMEN. VOTING NO: NO ONE. The conditional use permit was approved subject to the approved waivers. V. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, MEMBERS AND STAFF Mr. Campbell stated he was pleased to hear that the City Code would be changed so these requests would not come before the Board. He noted this request should not have come before the Board and should have been approved in the City staff ’s process. These were public organizations that were not working for a profit and were working for the City ’s cooperation, which was important to recognize and facilitate. VI. NEXT MEETING DATE Tentatively June 14, 2016 VII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m. City of Columbia, Missouri Page 5 Printed on 6/17/2016