Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20120112minutesMINUTES JEFFERSON CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 12.2U12 5:15 p.m. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT ATTENDANCE RECORD OeonOuboi 6of7 Bob George 4mf7 Chris Jordan, Vice Chairman G of J. Rick K8iha|evich 6 of David Nunn 6nf7 Ralph RubineK, Chairman 8 of Scott Stacey 7nf7 Chris Yarnell G of KViohoe| Lasbar, A|bsnnaba 7of7 BunnieTrickey Cotten, Alternate 6 o 7 Dale Vaughan, Alternate 7of7 EX -OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT Shawn Schulte, City Council Liaison STAFF PRESENT Janice McMillan, Director cfPlanning & Protective Services RogerSchvvartzo, Director ofPublic Works Eric Barron, Senior Planner Drew Hi|pert.Associate City Counselor DavidBange. Engineering Supervisor Shane Wade, Civil Engineer || Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant 1. Call koOrder and Introduction mfMembers, Ex -officio Members and Staff The Chairman, all regular members and all alternates were present. A quorum was present. Councilman Shawn Schu|te, Second Ward Councilman and Liaison to the Planning and Zoning Commission explained that as pod of his duties as Liaison he is the sponsor ofall bills coming out of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated that as sponsor ofthe Hayoe|ton Drive bill, it does not indicate whether he supports or opposes this bill. Councilman Schulte explained that his role tonight is to listen and share what he hears with fellow Council members. 2. Procedural Matters and Procedures Explained Mr. Barron explained the procedures for the meeting. The following documents were entered an exhibits. Mr. Barron advised that copies of the exhibits are available through the City Clerk or the Department ofPlanning and Protective Services: The City Code ofthe City ofJefferson, aoamended Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map Copies ofapplications under consideration A list nfproperty owners to whom notices were sent Affidavit ofpublication ofthe public notice inthe newspaper Rules nfProcedure, Planning &Zoning Commission K8c Barron submitted the following items for the record: Staff reports Minutes of proceedings Copies of drawings, p|ons, and/or renderings under consideration Letters ormemoranda from staff Materials submitted by the public or applicants pertaining to the cases under consideration Designation mfVoting Alternates Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 3. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Oubz| moved and Mr. Jordan seconded toadopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed 8- 0 with the following votes: Aye: Deeken, Dutoi, George, Jordan, Mihalevich, Nunn, Stacey, Yarnell 4. Approval ofMinutes from the Regular Meeting ofDecember 8.2D11 Mc George moved and Mr. Stacey seconded boapprove the minutes ofthe Regular Meeting of December 8, 2011 as written. The motion passed 8-0 with the following votes: Aye: Deeken.Dutoi.George, Jordan, Nliha|aviuh, Nunn, Stacey, Yarnell 5. Communications Received Correspondence was received for Case No. P1 101& OhdBwminmss/Pwb|ic Hearings Case No. P11018-1600 Block mfHeysakmn Drive; Rezonimg, Preliminary PUO Plan, and Preliminary P|mL (Continued from December 8, 2011). Applications filed by Gary 0berhrom, authorized representative for River Bluff Condominiums LLC, property owner. and Raymo Chinn. property owner, for the following: 1. A Rezoning of 4.36 acres from R3-3 Single Family Residential to PUD Planned Unit Development. 2 A Preliminary PUD Plan for 15 lot single family residential development. 3. A Preliminary Plat for a 15 lot single family residential subdivision consisting of 10.86 oonan. This proposal iethe same asthe one considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission in November/December of 2010 and voluntarily withdrawn by the applicants prior to consideration bythe City Council. The property is accessed from Hayoe|ton Drive approximately 20Ofeet east of Beverly Street. The property is described as port of the enuthvveei part of the northeast quarter, the northwest port of the southeast quader, the east half, and the northwest quarter of section one, township 44 North. range 12 West, Jefferson City, Cole County. Missouri. (Central Missouri Professional Services, Consultant) K4c Barron described the proposal and explained that the request consists of two maponoha properties. He stated that [Wc Raymo Chinn owns the western portion of the property and River Bluff Condominiums LLC owns the eastern portion of the property. Mr. Barron explained that the Chinn property is zoned RS -3 and the River Bluff Condominiums property is zoned PUO. He obabad that the Preliminary Plat shows one new cu|-de-sao nLnaet proposed to be named River Bluff Court. Mr. Barron explained that there are 15 |nbs shown on the development plan and that one of the lots would be platted around the existing Chinn residence. He stated that the plan proposes an underlying zoning district ofR8'2. Mr. Barron explained that the Applicant in proposing a reduced rear setback from 30 feet bJ25 feet for Lots 3-7. He stated that new pump station is proposed on the southern portion of the pnnperty. Mr. Barron explained that sidovvo|ko are shown on the southern side ofRiver Bluff Court. He stated that the Applicant has requested avariance from the maximum cu|-de-saolength inorder tnallow for aou|-do-sec1.00Ufeet long. Mr. DickOUke. Dick OtkeConstruction Compony, 2421 W. Edgewnod Drive, spoke regarding this request, Mc [Kke stated that he is representing River Bluff Condominiums. LLC and Rayma and Paul Chinn, He explained that in July 2011 the Developer and the Applicant met with members of the Hayselton Drive neighborhood. Mr. Otke stated that during that meeting the neighbors suggested the following: (1) The City and Lutheran Senior Services participate in the coot of constructing the street; (2) Developer reconsider a private drive off ofVV. Main Street; and (3) Retain the single family zoning. In response tothe neighbor's suggestions, Mr. [)tkeexp|ained that after reconsideration the developer believed that a private drive off ofVV. Main Street would be cost prohibitive and that the initial plan is the best plan. He stated that the City and Lutheran Senior Services would not be willing to participate in the cost ofconstructing the street. Mr. Otke explained that City Staff recommended a PUD zoning hnprotect the neighborhood. Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission January 12, 2012 A Mr. Mike Bates, Central Missouri Professional Services, 2500 E. McCarty Street, distributed the following exhibits: (A) the Preliminary Plat for River Bluff Estates Subdivision; (B) an aerial view of the subdivision; (C) an aerial view of the entire neighborhood; (D) the revised design for the West Main Street Access; (E) the original condominium plan; and (F) the original grading plan for the condominium development. He explained that the original PUD Plan that proposed access from W. Main Street did not include the Chinn property. Mr. Bates stated that on several occasions his firm looked at a development plan that would complement an alternate access from W. Main Street, but did not think that it is in the best interest of the neighborhood. He explained that it was the intent to minimize density and work with an underlying zoning district of RS -2. Mr. Bates explained that the preliminary design for the access to W. Main Street shows an anticipated cost of approximately $400,000. He stated that traffic continues to be a concern for the neighborhood. Mr. Bates explained that south of the proposed entrance, city staff identified an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 340 cars whereas north of the proposed entrance they identified an ADT of 220 cars. He stated that Staff identified 15 cars per hour for the peak hour. He stated that he believes that the footprint for the proposed development is substantially less than what was originally planned for the condominium development. Mr. Bates explained that the south side of the creek would remain intact in a natural form. He stated that he met with Mr. Bill Lockwood, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry and discussed the potential of the area by the creek and the area toward W. Main Street for a linear (greenway) park. Mr. Bates explained that Mr. Lockwood was receptive to that idea. He stated that Lots 1 and 15 would consist of 100 percent brick on the west side and exposed concrete foundations would not be allowed. He stated that no natural stone will be allowed. Mr. Heath Clarkston, 101 E. High Street, spoke in favor of this request on behalf of the Home Builders Association. Mr. Clarkston explained that the Home Builders Association passed a resolution in support of this development. He stated that the proposed development conforms with land uses in the area. Mr. Clarkston explained that the construction industry is in need of jobs and the proposed development will be an economic benefit for the community. Mr'. Ken Thoenen, 1301 Raymond Drive, spoke in favor of this request. Mr. Thoenen explained that the location of the proposed development promotes walkability and use of resources, as well as minimizing environmental impact. A resolution in support of this request was received from the Home Builders Association, 1420 Creek Trail Drive. Correspondence in opposition to this request was received on or before January 12, 2012 from the following individuals: Jane & Fred Szabados, 1910 Hayselton Drive; Dennis Benning, 1708 Hayselton Drive; Mark Pauley, 1608 Hayselton Drive; Troy Chockley, 1602 Beverly Street. The following individuals spoke in opposition to this request: Joe Bednar, 1602 Hayselton Drive; Mark Pauley, 1608 Hayselton Drive; Matt Connor, 1531 Hayselton Drive; Bridgett Stier, 1719 Hayselton Drive spoke on behalf of Mary Browning, 1716 Hayselton Drive; Linda Patton, 1511 Hayselton Drive; Jane Joslyn, 1712 Hayselton Drive; Kathy Penfold, 1901 N. Circle Drive; Kevin Thompson, 138 E. Circle Drive; Tim Schwarz, 1506 Hayselton Drive; Rob Johnson, 1702 Hayselton Drive; Jim Penfold, 1901 N. Circle Drive; Don Stier, 1719 Hayselton Drive; Ricky Kutcher, 1701 Hayselton Drive; Charlie Christiansen, 1912 Hayselton Drive; Fred Szabados, 1910 Hayselton Drive; Denis Bening, 1708 Hayselton Drive; Peggy Davis, 1925 Hayselton Drive; Shirley Dinkler, 1612 Hayselton Drive. The following concerns were voiced by those individuals speaking in opposition: 1. The road setback for the Bednar property and Pauley property will be reduced causing a detriment to property owners and property values. 2. The proposed development does not fit in with the Hayselton Drive neighborhood and the character of the historic Hayselton Drive neighborhood should be maintained. 3. Is there a benefit of the proposed development to the Hayselton Drive neighborhood. Is there a market for a new subdivision. Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission January 12.2O12 4, Variances should not materially oradversely affect adjacent property owners, 5. Subject property is a great location for boi|head for Qreenwoy, but not to force a new street that used hobeadriveway. 6. There isnoeconomic benefit iothe city bnapprove this plan. 7. It is not the role of the city to bail out a developer because they mode a bad economic decision. It is to our economic detriment and the historic neighborhoods detriment if this plan is approved. 8. We support development in a fiscally responsible manner. We think there are other areas and opportunities in the city to focus their attention on. Make this a oaLo|ynt for the city to begin a master plan process so that these are done in a coordinated fashion and a priority fashion. 8 Plan is not feasible because of Mr. [}tka's track necord, he is on his third or fourth plan. 10. Residents are preserving their neighborhood by upgrading sidewalks, landscaping and remodeling their homes. 11 Residents will take a financial |nse and homes will not be marketable because of an increase in traffic due Lothis development. 12, Developer does not have the necessary amount of land to convert an existing driveway into a street. 11 Excavation to build a retaining vvaU for the proposed street will have on impact on existing mature trees on Mr. Pau|ay's property. 14. That the Developer has changed his plan numerous times, could potentially add additional units in the future. 15. Move entry point hoVK Main Street because it iswider and is more able to handle ingress and egress. 16. Blasting will result in diminishing the eagle population along the river and damage property. 17. Increase in traffic will be a safety issue for children and residents enjoying the neighborhood, 18. Should not ignore the rules and regulations that have been dutifully set down to help make o community better and safer and not at the expense of making our neighborhood an unsafe place to live. 19. Parking nnboth sides ofthe street iaosafety issue. 20, The proposed location of the new street is a safety hazard because it is on a blind curve. 21. Cost of road damage and cost of property damage due to construction of the proposed development should bepaid bynon-taxpayer dollars. 22. Noneed for more development with vacant homes inthe neighborhood. 23. Developer needs hoensure that they are in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 24. Increased traffic on Hayou|hon Drive and E Circle Drive will lead to serious issues of safety and increased noise. 25. Hoyse|bon Drive/E. Circle Drive route is the shortest way to W. Main Street from the proposed entrance to the new subdivision and does not require going through the congestion at the Dix Road/W. Main Street stop sign. It is likely to be the chosen route for much of the construction and resident traffic ifHayee|hon Drive remains the sole entrance to this new subdivision. 26. Numerous accidents at E. Circle Drive and Hayee|bon Ohwa are due to the blind curve at Hayse|hunDrive and N.Circle Drive. 27. The zoning ordinance was developed to preserve neighborhoods such as Hayse|bon Drive. /t is not the function of variances and zoning changes to restate the economic conditions to make an investment in that particular property viable under the present economic circumstances. 28. Rather see the developer reconsider the 2005 plan of locating the proposed development behind the Lutheran Senior Services retirement home onVV.Main Street. 28. Last year during consideration of this matter city engineering staff indicated that the hairpin curve would not baapproved under modern subdivision standards. 30. Approximately 10 acres of vacant land adjoins the proposed subdivision in the Rivenwood Subdivision and is accessible from W. Main 8tn*ai The developer ofthe proposed subdivision is offering approximately 14 acres and another landowner is offering approximately acres. If this additional land is developed as a single family residential neighborhood it would be Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission January 12.2O12 compatible with the proposed subdivision. the Rivemvood Subdivision and the predominant land use along VKMain Street. 31. Proposed development goes against preservation and restoration values. 32. The drawing that shows the ADT counts does not reflect the congestion on Hoyse|bon Drive when vehicles are parked onboth sides ofthe street, 33. No ample documentation of approvals from the Fire Department and Department of Conservation. 34 Suggestion to place the proposed street off of Beverly Street where two homes are vacant. 35 Consider traffic flow on Hoyso|ton Drive when conducting traffic counts. Hayoe|tun Drive is a long street with hevv intersections. 38, Many houses on Hayse|ton Drive have minimal off-street parking. Many houses only have one car garage orcar port. Many homes have shared driveways or no driveways at all. 37. Emergency vehicles have a difficult time coming down Hayse|ton Drive as it exists today. 38. Hoyme|b/nDrive neighborhood cannot handle additional residential and construction traffic. In response to the concern regarding the possibility of the developeradding additional units in the future, Mr. Robinett explained that since this is a PUD Plan the developer cannot amend the PUD Plan without coming back b7the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Cotten left at0:43pm. K8c Rob Johnoon, 1702 Haysehon Drive, entered into the record a letter from Mr. Eric Seaman, Wastewater Division Director' dated December 8. 2011 pertaining to the relocation of the Hoyoe|bon Pump Station. Chairman Robinett closed testimony at 7:24 p.m., and called for o recess. The meeting reconvened ot735p.m.and the Chairman reopened testimony. Mr. OUke explained that one of the benefits of this plan in the neighborhood is that it would limit the entire development to 14 additional |ots, whereas if the Chinn's sell to another developer they can develop under the existing R8'3 zoning of the property. He stated that developer could file a plat and divide the 3.8 acres currently zoned RS -3 into 13 or 14 |ots, without incorporating any of the PUD zoned property. Mr. Otheexp|oined that the current plan cuts the density by 50 percent or better. He stated that Central Missouri Professional Semicon staked the streets and the sidewalks for residents to see where the proposed development is to be located. Mr. [)the explained that the proposed development is only the second plan to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission, He stated that the original plan was for 5Ocondominium units. Mr. [>tkaexp|ained that there will be minimal blasting. He stated that bafuny any blasting can occur the excavating contractor has to apply to the City for o permit and the contractor has to be licensed. Mr. Otke explained that the excavating company does an inspection of the adjacent homes prior to blasting. Mr. Bates did not have additional comments. Mr. Joe Bednar offered rebuttal comments, He commented that the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to consider the reasonability and viability of the proposed plan. Ms. Gabriel Peybon, 1619 Leander Apt. 7 requested to speak as she is not a resident of the Hayme|bon neighborhood. She posed two questions: (1) are there benefits to the city for where the entrance is to be located; and (3) have there been discussions about an alternate entrance, In response, K8r. Robinettoxp|ained that under this PUD Plan the other entrance is not addressed. Chairman Robinett closed testimony at T-50 p.m. Mr. Barron gave the Planning Division staff report. Mr. Wade gave the Engineering Division staff report. Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission Page January 12.2O12 Mr. Bates concurred with staff comments and recommendations. Mr. Oeekon commented that there have been concerns regarding traffic but even if this development does not go hhrough. the problems on HayseUon Drive and E. Circle Drive aro going to be the same. He explained that W. K8oCody Street is o similar situation with the same street width of 30 feet and an ADT of 900 cars. Mr. Deeken stated that people park on both sides of the street and emergency vehicles are able hoget up and down the street. He explained that the safety concerns dnnot warrant that much consideration. Mr. Jordan moved and Mr. Dutoi seconded to recommend approval of rezoning the RS -3 zoned portion of the property (excluding Reserve Tract B as identified on the proposed Preliminary Plat) consisting o[4.28 acres from RS -3 to PUD to the City Council. The motion passed 8-0 with the following votes: Aye: Deeken, Dutoi, George, Jordan, Nunn, Mihalevich, Stacey, Yarnell KAc Jordan moved and K8c Dutoi seconded to approve rescinding the prior PUO Plans for the property owned by River Bluff Condominiums LLC, identified as Case Nos. P05013 and P05039. The motion passed 6-2 with the following votes: Aye: Oeaken, Duhoi.George, Jordan, Nunn, Yarnell Nay: Mihalevich, Stacey k8c Jordon moved and W1c Duboi seconded to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUO Plan for the proparty, consisting of 10.78 acres. to the City Council. The motion passed 6-2 with the following votes: Aye: Oooken, Uuhoi.George, Jordan, Nunn, Yarnell Noy: K8iha|evich, Stacey N1c Jordan moved and K8c Duboi seconded b/approve the variance from the requested maximum cul-de-sac length in order to allow for o 1000 foot long cul-de-sac. The motion passed 8-0 with the following votes: Aye: Deeken, Dutoi, George, Jordan, Nunn, Mihalevich, Stacey, Yarnell K8c Jordan moved and K8c Oub»i seconded to approve the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for River Bluff Estates Subdivision. The motion passed 6-2 with the following votes: Aye: Ueehen, Ouboi.George, Jordan, Nunn, Yarnell Nay: Mihalevich, Stacey 7. Miscellaneous Reports None. 8. Other Business Mr. Atsushi K8icuno, K0Kaui FudosanCompuny. Tokyo, Japan, gave an informational presentation about oland development project inJapan. 9. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Eric Barron, Assistant Secretary