Loading...
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