HomeMy Public PortalAbout20100812minutesT, H ilk LW0M
JEFFERSON CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
August 12.2O1O
5:15 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT
Ralph RobineU.Chairman
JaokDeeken
UemnDu(oi
Bob George
J. Rick Mihe|evich
Scott Stacey
Chris Yarnell
Michael Lester, Alternate
BunnieTrickey Cotten, Alternate
Dale Vaughan, AUo/na10
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2 of
2 of
1 of
1 of
2 of
1 of
2 of
2of2
1 of 1
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT
Chris Jordan, Vice Chairman 1 of
David Nunn 1 of
EX -OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT
Eric Struemph, City Council Liaison
STAFF PRESENT
Janice McMillan, Deputy Director ofPlanning & Transportation Services
Eric Barron, Senior Planner
Drew Hi|pert.Associate City Counselor
Shane Wade, Civil Engineer U
Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant
1. Call to Order and Introduction of Members, Ex -officio Members and Staff
The Chairman, six regular membersand three alternates were present. Aquorum was VroaonL
Chairman Robinett introduced new alternates Ms. Bunnie Trickey Cotten and Mr. Dale Vaughan.
2. Procedural Matters and Procedures Explained
Mr. Barron explained the procedures for the meeting. The following documents were entered as
exhibits. Mr. Barron advised that copies of the exhibits are available through the City Clerk or the
Department ofCommunity dDevelopment:
Chapter 35ofthe City Code, Zoning
Chapter 33ofthe City Code, Subdivision Regulations
Chapter 31 of the City Code, S\ormvvater Management
Chapter 8nfthe City Code, Building Regulations
Chapter 7ofthe City Code, Boards and Commissions
Chapter 3ofthe City Code, Advertising and Sign Code
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map
Copies ufapplications under consideration
Alist ofproperty owners towhom notices were sent
Affidavit ofpublication ofthe public notice inthe newspaper
Rules ofProcedure, Planning & Zoning Commission
Mc Barron submitted the following items for the record:
Staff reports
Minutes ofproceedings
Copies of drawings, p|ans, and/or renderings under consideration
Letters urmemoranda from staff
Materials submitted by the public or applicants pertaining to the cases under consideration
Designation ofVoting Alternates
The Chairman announced that all regular members and a|harnutoa Mm. Cotten and Mr. Lester
[Winuk*sUoffenaon City Planning &ZoninA Commission Page 2
August 12.2O1O
3. Adoption ofAgenda
Mr. George moved and &1r, Du(oisocondad toadopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed
8-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Cottpn, Deekun, Dutoi, George, Leu(or, K4iha|eviuh, Stooey, Yarnell
4. Approval ofMinutes from the Regular Meeting ofJune 1O'201O
Mr. Yarnell moved and Mr. Lester seconded to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of
June 1O.2010 The motion passed 8'Owith the following votes:
Aye: C*(teu, Deeken, Du1oi, G)eorg*, Lmu|er, Miha|evioh, Siuoey, Yarnell
5. Communications Received
Correspondence was received for Case Nos, P1OO17and P1OO18.
G. New Business — Public Hearings
Cane No. P10017 — 315 Flora Drive; Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Request filed by Gary and Mary Phillips, property owners, Harold yWoDoweU, app|icant, for the
following:
1. To rezone an area consisting of 1.25 acres from C-2 General Commercial to RA -1 High
Density Reaidentia|�and,
2 To rezone an area consisting of 1.26 acres from PUD Planned Unit Development to RA -1
High Density Rooidentia|�and,
3. An amendment to the Development Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan to show the
property anHigh Density Residential.
The property is |ooubad on the north aide of Flora Drive approximately 300 feet west of Tanner
Bridge Road and is described as part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 44 North,
Range 12 VVeot, and port of Tract C of Southwood Hills Addition, Jefferson City. Missouri.
(Central Missouri Professional Services, Consultant)
Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained that the request is to rezone the western half of
the propedy, which is currently split by a zoning boundary line. He stated that the applicant is
proposing to *zona the C-2 portion and a port of the PUD portion of the property to RA -1, leaving
the remainder of the property zoned PUD. Mr. Barron explained that in conjunction with (he
rezoning application, the applicant submitted u conceptual site plan showing u development
consisting of an eight unit residential apartment building, He stated that with a rezoning request the
applicant would not be held to this specific site plan. Mr, Barron explained that the development
plan nnop of the Comprehensive Plan shows the subject property as commercial, therefore an
amendment to show the 231 acres as high density residential would be necessary to support the
proposed rezoning.
Mr. Mike Bates, Central Missouri Professional Services, 2500 E. McCarty Street, spoke regarding
this request. Mr. Bates distributed o visual depicting the area to be rezoned. He otobad that it is his
opinion u C'2 use should not be pursued for this property. Mr. Bates explained that currently there
are no plans to do anything other than Mr. McDowell purchasing this property and eventually
building an 8 -unit one bedroom apartment development. He stated that Mr. McDowell did o
conceptual site plan only for the purpose of making sure that the proposed use would fit on the
property. Mr. Bated described that the eastern 120 feet of the property would remain zoned PUD
and emphasized that atthis time there are no plans for development on this 120 foot buffer area.
He explained that at the June 10, 2010 meeting a rezoning request to C --O was removed from the
agenda because it was mistakenly thought that apartments could be built in the C-0 zoning district.
Mr. Bates stated that the property would potentially allow for three to four apartment buildings but
he did not u/duuUy do design to see how many could be constructed. He explained that |he
applicant is not promising that these would be built within six months to a year, the request was
submitted simply to get into a position to proceed with the development when the market was
ready. Mr. Bohaa ohahsd that the grade elevation difference from the east aide of the property to the
crest nfthe hill before Tanner Bridge Road is52to54feet.
Minutes/Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission Page 3
August 12, 2010
The following individuals spoke in opposition to this request:
Lois Chronister, 1628 Tanner Bridge Road
Barbara Wood Heinrich, 1632 Tanner Bridge Road
Betty Beck, 1626 Tanner Bridge Road
Glen Prenger, 1710 Tanner Bridge Road
John Clardy, 528 Aurora Avenue
Those speaking in opposition voice the following comments and concerns:
1. Maintain the single family residential neighborhood characteristics;
2. Commercial businesses that close at 5:00 p.m. are acceptable because they do not generate
night noise and night traffic;
3. Apartment buildings generate after hours disturbances from loud stereos and cars;
4. Existing buffer area is not adequate for this type of development;
5. Safety concerns due to an increase in vehicular traffic and foot traffic from the proposed
apartment development;
6. Existing buffer area can be rezoned easily;
7. Loss of control of what is allowed in this area if rezoned to RA -1.
Correspondence in opposition to this request was received from the following individuals:
Lucile & Victor Kampeter, 1631 Tanner Bridge Road
Peggy Dawdy, 1707 Tanner Bridge Road
Lois Chronister, 1628 Tanner Bridge Road
Barbara & Edward Heinrich, 1632 Tanner Bridge Road
In response to the concerns voiced by those speaking in opposition, Mr. Bates emphasized that
grading would not be allowed on the remaining PUD portion of the property without a plan coming
back to the Commission. He stated that keeping a 120 foot natural buffer is probably one of the
most extreme examples of a bufferyard. Mr. Bates explained that the remaining PUD zoning would
give the neighborhood protection because any future plan cannot be considered without their input.
In response to the concern regarding children, Mr. Bates explained that the RA -1 district does riot
preclude someone from developing three bedroom apartments. He stated that the Applicant's
proposal of one bedroom apartments is not normally a population generator particularly for children.
Mr. Bates clarified that the reason not to rezone the entire property to PUD is that developers and
builders feel that the PUD development process is very restrictive.
Ms. Betty Beck, 1626 Tanner Bridge Road, commented that Mr. Bates said there is nothing
planned for the buffer zone now. She stated that in the future they can do anything they want. Ms.
Beck inquired whether the developer could put more apartments. In response, Mr. Deeken
explained that they can but they have to come back in front of the Planning and Zoning
Commission with a specific plan. He stated that the developer can't go in and build it because PUD
zoning is very restrictive.
Mr. Barron gave the Planning Division staff report and explained that this area does contain a mix
of different types of uses. He stated that the addition of a residential component to the mix of uses
in this area would not seem to create a major land use conflict. Mr. Barron explained that an ideal
type of zoning situation is a transitional zoning where a commercial district is separated from a
single family district by less intensive uses and the proposed rezoning would be a step toward a
transitional zoning pattern in the area. He stated that a multi -family residential district would be
considered less intensive than the C-2 General Commercial zoning district and that this rezoning
request would establish a slightly lower zoning than what is currently contained on this property. In
response to concerns regarding an increase in traffic, Mr. Barron explained that the zoning code
does have a requirement for a traffic impact study for a use that would generate a large amount of
traffic. He stated that the trigger for a traffic impact study is 100 peak hour uses. Mr. Barron
explained that an apartment complex constructed to the maximum allowed on this property would
not trigger a requirement for a traffic impact study.
Minutes/Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission
August 12.2010
Page
Ma. K4oK4i||on pointed out that, in regards tothe comments made pertaining to traffic, o single
family residential home will typically generate 10 tu12vehicle trips per day whereas en apartment
use Such aothe one proposed may generate five tuseven vehicle trips per day.
K4a, MoK4i|hn commented that often times in development proposals comments and questions
are put forward about how a proposal may affect the value of property. She stated that people in
the community should know that members on the Planning and Zoning Commission bring their own
expertise. Ms McMillan explained that it is incumbent on members to bring to the debate and
discussion their knowledge of these issues and share this knowledge as part of the discussion with
the developer and the Community. She encouraged Commission members to share those thoughts
with the people inthe audience and for the record.
Mr. Yarnell moved and Mr. Stacey seconded to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Man
Amendment to show the property as High Density Residential to the City Council. The motion
passed 5-4with the following votes:
Aye: Du|oi, Mihu|evioh, RmbineU, 3(ecey, Yarnell
Nay: Cotten, Deeken, George, Lester
M/. Yarnell moved and K8c Stacey seconded to recommend approval of rezoning the property
from C-2 and PUD to RA -1, to the City Council. The motion passed 5-4 with the following votes:
Aye: Dutoi iWihu|evioh. Robinott. Sbacey, Yarnell
Nay�Cotten, Oeakan.George, Lester
Mr. RobneM informed the audience that this is a recommendation that will be sent forward to the
City Council. He explained that they will have an opportunity to attend the City Council's public
hearing regarding this request.
Mr. Barron clarified that the City Council's public hearing onthis request iuscheduled for Monday,
September 2U.2O10otG:O0pm.inthe Council Chambers.
Case No. P10018 — 2900 Block of VVmot Ed0ovvood Drive (north side); Rezoning arid
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Application filed by Leon and Carol Buok, property owners,
to rezone an area consisting of 3.8 acres from RS -1 Low Density Residential to C-2 General
Commercial and an associated arnendment to the comprehensive plan development plan map to
show the property on commercial. The property is located approximately 500 feet north of West
EdgewoodDrive immediately west ofthe Highway 170intersection. The property isdescribed us
part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15 and peri of the Southwest
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10. Township 44 North, Range 12 VVooi, Jo[kamon
City, Cole County, Missouri.
Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained that this property was annexed into the City of
Jefferson as port of the Highway 1798Cnaak Trail/Frog Hollow Drive voter approved annexation in
2006. He stated that at that tirne the annexation plan of intent identified this property as residential.
Mr. Barron explained that the property owner also owns the property tothe south, which serves as
access to the subject parcel from Edg*woud Drive. He stated that the purpose of the request is to
unify the zoning of the property and accommodate future commercial development. Mr. Barron
explained that the residential designation of the property within the annexation plan of intent
necessitates a comprehensive plan amendment to re-clesignate the property as commercial.
Mr. Paul Baok, 5113 Edinburgh VVayo, spoke on behalf nfthe applicant and explained that the
subject property is currently zoned RS -1 Low Density Residential and the request is to rezone it to
C-2 General Commercial. He stated that at this time the applicant does not have specific plans to
develop the property.
Matt & Theresa To|ksdnrf, 840VVuothorh0 Qoad, oxpn*ouod concerns regarding maintaining the
Minutes/Jefferson City Planning &Zoning Commission
August 12.201O
Mr. Barron explained that this is m straight proposed rezoning toC-2and any development plans
wouNgoihroughanodminiatnativopnooessbecuuoethepropedyiono\inoPUDdiu|riciHes|akad
that there is a specific category of bufferyard requirements in the zoning code for developing a C-2
property bordering a single family property. Mr. Barron explained that within that category o/
bUfferyards there are several options that a developer could choose anywhere from an open space
bufferyun1 with no trees to n fairly narrow area with o row of trees and fence. He stated that with
regards to establishing some sort of stipulation on tho zoning of the property in order to require a
apooJiu type ofbufferyord. a rezoning proposal can not have conditions attached to it. Mr. Barron
explained that if rezoned to C-2, this property Would be afforded all of the rights of C-2 property.
He mentioned that there is no protection in the zoning code or the city code for Cutting down trees.
Mr. George inquired whether dwould beappropriate h`include inthe motion that the developer
would have to maintain that buffer for the To|kado/f benefit. In nauponma. Mr. Barron reiterated that
the Commission can not attach conditions |oorezoning request. Heexplained that the buffer zone
requirement iatriggered with the development ofthe property.
Joseph Soheppera, 817VVeaUedhiU Road, expressed concerns regarding access in and out of
the subject property.
In response to the concerns voiced by Mr. and Mrs. Tw|kudorf, M/. Beek explained that the
applicant does not have problem with the bufferyord remaining in place. He ababxj that they are
trying to work with the adjacent landowners and chose not to remove any trees on that part of tile
property yet. Mr. Beek explained that the applicant built o berm in which to store topsoil and
realized that this could be an area in which to plant a buffer zone in the future.
Mr. Beck stated that Mr. Schapperu brought up a concern about access in and out of the
property. He explained that when the applicant bought the property from the Wallenclorf's they had
a recorded easement from South Ten Mile Drive to their property for the purpose of ingress/egress.
Mr. Bock stated that there was not an ingress/egress easemantwritten for Mr. Suhepperxto travel
freely on the applicant's property to West Edgewood Drive, and this route has always been a
private drive. He explained that Mr. Snhopp*ry may not beaware that a 8Ofoot easement has been
dedicated through this section ofproperty for Ma. Doris Luecke to access her property to the north
Mr. Beck stated that this maybe something Mr. SchopperawiU have interest in taking advantage of
in the future. He reiterated that the applicant does not have specific plans to develop the subject
property at this time. Mr. Beck explained that by rezoning to C'2 it makes the property more
marketable.
Correspondence was received inopposition hothis request from Doris House/Luecke. PO Box
105158.Jefferson City, Missouri.
Mr. Barron gave the Planning Division staff report and explained that the comprehensive plan
amendment would formalize the intended commercial use for the property and mmuN serve to
strengthen the commercial development pattern along West EdQewood Drive He stated that the
property gains access to West Edgawood Drive through the neighboring property to the snuth,
which is under the same ownership and already zoned C-2. Mr. Barron explained that the
requested rezoning would unify the zoning of these two properties. He stated that access would be
off VfWest EdgewoodDrive through the current C'2portion.
Mr. Ouhoi inquired whether a piece Vfproperty zoned C-2 jutting into an RS -1 zoned area would
onaobe a peninsula of commercial zoning. In response, Mr. Barron explained that the area to the
east of the propurty, while zoned nea|donbu|, is all highway right-of-way. He stated that |ho
requested rezoning would not create a peninsula of commercial zoning.
K4o. McMillan pointed out that if access is going to be significantly different than access off of
Minutes/Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission Page
August 12.201O
Mr. Deeken cornmented that the entire area of West Edgewood is commercial.
Mr. Vaughan commented that hesells commercial realty and agrees that the surrounding area is
mainly commercial. Heinquired whether uzoning ofC-[>orC-1 maybeless intensive because of
the nature of the C-2 zoning district.
Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Lester seconded to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to show the property as commercial, to the City Council. The motion passed 7-1 with
the following votes:
Aye: Cotten, Deakeo. DuhOi.George, Lester, Stacey, Yarnell
Nay: K4iho|evich
M/. Stacey moved and Mr. Lester seconded to recommend approval of rezoning the property
from RS -1 to C-2, tothe City Council. The motion passed 7'1 with the following votes:
Aye: Cotten, Deeken.Du1oi.George, Lester, Stacey, Yarnell
Nay: Milialevich
Cas* No. P10019 — 2900 Block of West Ed0evvond Drive (south side); Rezoning and
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Application filed byStoneoreuk Management LIC, property
owner. Leon and Carol Beok, authorized reprpaenbstives, to nyrnne an area consisting of 13
acres from RS -1 Low Density Residential to C-2 General Commercial and an associated
amendment to the comprehensive plan development plan map show the property as cornmercial.
The property is located on the south aide of West Edgovvopd Drive immediately west of the
Highway 170 intersection. The property is described as part of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter and part of the Southwest Quarter ofthe Northeast Quarter of Section 15.
Township 44North, Range 12West, Jefferson City, Cole County, Missouri.
Mr. Barron described the proposal and explained that this request is to rezone a parcel consisting
of 13 acres from RS -1 to C'2, He stated that this property was annexed into the City of Jefferson
as pari of the Highway 179/Creak Trail/Frog Hollow [)rive voter approved annexation in 2006. Mr.
Barron explained that at the time of annexation, the property was part of a larger parcel of land that
included a number ofresidential houses located off ofLeoar Drive (to the south). He stated that u
parcel division was approved administratively in 2008 that divided the property along the ona*k,
thereby separating the residential portion of the property from the undeveloped portion. Mr. Barron
explained that the identification of the property as residential in the annexation plan of intent and
designation as commercial/medium density residential on the comprehensive plan development
plan map necessitates a comprehensive plan amendment to support the proposed zoning.
Mr. Paul Beck, 5113 Edinburgh Waye, spoke on behalf of the applicant and explained that at the
time nfthe voluntary annexation the property was zoned RG -1 and was not divided into two parcels
of land. The naaidenUu| uses south of the creek have since been divided off from the subject
property. Mr. Beck explained that aooeau is o0 of West Edgowood Drive Mr. Beck explained that
at this time the applicant does not have specific plans to develop the property.
No one spoke in opposition and no correspondence was received.
Mk. Barron gave the Planning Division staff report and explained that the proposal would
formalize the intended commercial use plan for the property and would oanxa to strengthen the
commercial development pattern along West EdgewnodDrive.
Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Yarnell seconded to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to show the property aucommercial, lothe City Council. The motion passed 8-0 with
the following votes:
Aye: Cotten, Oooken.Duhoi.George, Lester, Miha|ovich.Stacey, Yarnell
[Winuhye/ eOersonChyP|unning&ZoningCommiasinn
August 12.2O1O
Page
Mr. Stacey moved and Mr. Yarnell seconded to recommend approval of rezoning the property
from RS -1 toC'2tothe City Council. The motion passed 8-0with the following votes:
Aye.- Coiton, Dweken, Dutoi, Goorge, Looter, K4iho|evinh, S|uo*y, Yarnell
7. Other New Business
None.
8. Miscellaneous Reports
None.
8. Other Business
A. Appointment mfLiaison to Environmental Quality Commission
Mr. Stacey volunteered to serve as the Planning and Zoning Commission Representative.
10. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p,m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Barron, Assistant Secretary