HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110113minutesT111-11num
JEFFERSON CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
January 13.2011
515 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
JaukDeoken
6of8
DeanOutui
4of6
Chris Jonjon, Vice Chairman
5 of
J. Rick Miha|uvich
G of
David Nunn
4 of
Scott
4of8
Chris Yarnell
5of6
BunnieTrickey Cotten, Alternate
5of5
Michael Leater, Alternate
5 of
Dale Vaughan, Alternate
5 of
*Arrived late
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT
Bob George 3nf6
EX -OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT
Eric Struemph, City Council Liaison
STAFF PRESENT
Janice McMillan, Deputy DinyukorofP|unning&TnanapndaiionSowicea
Eric Barron, Senior Planner
Drew Hi|ped.Associate City Counselor
Anne Stnatmen, Administrative Assistant
1. Call tmOrder and Introduction ufMembers, Ex -officio Members and Staff
The Choirmon, seven regular members and three uhorno(eo were present. A quorurn was
present.
2. Procedural Matters and Procedures Explained
Since there were no public hearings before the Commission, the Chairman elected to forego the
procedural matters.
Designation ofVoting Alternates
The Chairman announced that all regular members and alternates Ma. Cotten and Mr. Lester
were designated tovote.
3. Adoption ofAgenda
Mr. Dutoi moved and Mr. Lester seconded (oadopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed 8-
0 with the following votes:
Aye: Cotten, Deeken.Outoi.Jordan, Lester, Miha|evioh.Nunn, Yarnell
4. Approval ofMinutes from the Regular Meeting ofDecember 0.3O1O
Mr. Jordan moved and Mr. Nunn seconded to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of
December U.201Oaswritten. The motion passed 8-0with the following votes:
Aye: Cotten, Deekan`Dutoi^Jordan, Lester, K8iha|evioh.Nunn, Yarnell
5. Communications Received
Correspondence was received from Harold McDowell pertaining to site visits for Planning and
Zoning Cases.
Chairman RobineU commented that he makes it a practice to view the property and encouraged
Commission members to do the same. He stated that it is not necessary to direct Commission
members Vud0000rhave the Chairman take apoll ateach meeting.
Minutes/Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission
January 13.2011
Mr. Duhzi commented that it is not necessary to poll Commission members before each meeting.
He stated that in his opinion the point has been well taken and enough has been said,
6. New Business
None.
Miscellaneous Reports
None.
*Mr. Stacey arrived at 5:25.
8. Other Business
A. Discussion ofzoning code revisions pertaining tothe following:
1. Recycling Collection Stations
Mr. Barron explained that the proposed code amendment would modify Section 36'40C by
listing recycling collection stations as o permitted accessory use in the non-residential zoning
districts with placement and operation standards. He stated that Section 35-41.B.20.b.(1) would
be removed which authorizes recycling collection points as an accessory use with a conditional
use permit in the Commercial and Industrial districts. Mr. Barron explained that the proposed
amendment would solve the nonconforming uses inacommercial area.
K4c Jordan inquired whether it would betoken into consideration that this type ofuse would
be buffered from neighbors. In response, Mr. Barron explained that there would be accessibility
and logistical issues when enclosing these drop-off containers.
2. CmnpotingFuxilitieo
Mr. Barron explained that the proposed amendment would modify Exhibit 35'28. Lund Use
K8a|rix. by adding Composting Facility as u permitted use in the M-2 district and o Special
Exception use in the C-2 and K4-1 districts. He stated that Specific use standards for the operation
of a composting facility would also be added to section 35-41.13 (Specific Use Standards).
Mr. Nunn inquired whether the 25 foot setback would be in addition to a bufferyard if it adjoins
a residential district. In response, Mr. Barron explained that they would be subject to normal
bufferyard requirements.
Mr. Nunn inquired whether they can sk>ns materials if it is within 25 feet of the property line
even though that would be within the bufferyard. In response, Mr. Barron explained that a
bufferyard would have to remain free of those things. He stated that they could establish a 25 foot
wide buffaryard and store the materials up to that buffer.
3. Refuse Containers
&4r. Barron explained that the proposed amendment would modify the allowance for
dumpuham and refuse containers as an accessory use in Section 35-40.0 by allowing for
deviations from the standards if approved by the Director of Community Development, and Would
establish the same allowance in Section 35-408for multi -family residential uses. Hestated that
the proposed amendment would also consolidate requirements for dunnpstera and refuse
containers into o single section by moving the screening requirements currently found in Section
35-41.B.18
Mr. Yarnell inquired whether the amendment should list the types of material that are not
allowed. In response, Mr. Barron explained that generally we try to list the types of meh*riu|a that
can be allowed because people are vary innovative in tnnno of finding new and interesting
materials.
Mr. Jordon commented that he has naan enclosures that are falling down and were never
replaced orrepaired. Heexplained that onVentura there are dumpshersonthe righ(-of-wnyina
Minutes/Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission
January 12.2011
Page
Ms. McMillan explained that some dumpsters located on the right-of-way predate annexation
into the city. She stated that in some ooame they have gone through the Public Works and
Planning Committee to either replace them or locate them on the right-of-way. Ms. McMillan
suggested adding this procedure to the ordinance in the event this type of facility has no other
option than to be located on the right-of-way. In response to Mr. YgrneU'scomments regarding
screening, Ms. McMillan explained that there are some unique screening materials being used.
She stated that Allied Waste is more concerned with a gate in front of the dur-npster, as opposed
to the screening around the facility, because it requires extra effort on their part to reach the
dumpo(er.
Mr. Dub)i suggested adding on additional item that the enclosures shall be maintained in
good repair and appearance.
Ms. McMillan explained that we do have standards in the code that pertain to requirements
for fences so we can use those same standards. She suggested treating recycling containers and
dumpntors similarly and combining them into one section to avoid duplication. Ms. K4uyWiUon
explained that we are also allowing accessory uono for an apartment complex or any other
commercial use to have a nmo||or version of those facilities. She stated that it is going to be a
growing use that will change the landscape for awhile,
Mr. Dukoi commented that hedoes not have a problem with combining nauyohng containers
and dumpsters into one section as long as it is treated similar to dumpsters.
4. Drive -Through Lanes
Mr. Barron explained that the proposed amendment would reduce the minimum radius
requirement for drive-through lanes from 45feet to20feet. He cited examples of existing drive-
through lanes throughout the City whose radius' hover between 15 and 20 feet.
Mr. Stroamphleft sd8:00pm.
Mr. Robinett inquired whether businesses that are nonconforming will be grandfathered in. In
response, Mr. Barron explained that those businesses one grandfathered in because they have a
less than 45 foot radius however He stated that some of the newer restaurants conform to the 45
foot radius. Mr. Barron explained that banks and drive-through pharmacies tend tu have more of
a thru-movement throughout their property. He stated that fast food restaurants are having o
more difficult time conforming tuthe 45foot radius.
Chairman Robnettesked commission members |nconsider the proposed amendments and
to send any further comments they may have to staff so that the amendments can be brought
forward for a public hearing at the February 10, 2011 meeting.
9. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:07 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Barron, Assistant Secretary