Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20120308minutesJEFFERSON CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 8.2O12 COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT Jack Deeken DaonOutoi Michael Lester David Nunn Ralph Robinett, Chairman Scott Stacey Chris Yarnell BunnieTrickey Cotten, Alternate Dale Vaughan, Alternate Bobb George Chris Jordan, Vice Chairman EX -OFFICIO MEMBERS ABSENT Shawn Schulte, City Council Liaison STAFF PRESENT Janice McMillan, Director o/Planning & Protective Services Eric Barron, Senior Planner Anne Stratmon, Administrative Assistant Diane (}mry' Administrative Technician ATTENDANCE RECORD 8ofy gofQ 7ofQ 8ofQ yo[S 8ofB 8ofQ Q of ATTENDANCE RECORD 1. Call toOrder and Introduction mfMembers, Ex -officio Members and Staff The Chairman, six regular members and two alternates were present. A quorum was present. 2. Procedural Matters and Procedures Since there were no public hearings before the Commission, the Chairman elected b/forego the procedural matters. Designation of Voting Alternates The Chairman announced that all regular members and Alternates Ms. Cotton and W1c Vaughan were eligible to vote. 3. Adoption of Agenda K8c Nunn moved and K8c Duhni seconded to adopt the agenda as printed. The motion passed 8-0 with the following votes: Aye: Cotten, Deeken, Dutoi, Lester, Nunn, Stacey, Vaughan, Yarnell 4. Approval mfMinutes from the Regular Meeting mfFebruary 9,2O12 N1c Stacey moved and Ms. Cotten seconded to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 9'2O12aswritten. The motion passed 8'0with the following votes: Aye: Cotten, Deeken, Duh)i, Lester, Nunn, Stacey, Vaughan, Yarnell S. Communications Received Correspondence was received from Central Missouri Professional Services. Consultant for the deve|opans, pertaining to the withdrawal of the Hoyse|ton Drive Rezoning and Preliminary PUO Plan request from Council consideration. 6. New Business None. 7. Miscellaneous Reports None. March 8, 2012 8. Other Business A. Discussion of Zoning Code Amendments relating bzthe following: 1. Funnoa &4r. Barron explained that current fence regulations do not specify design standards or the type of materials that are permitted. He stated that as an example Lees Summit requires that fences must be constructed with the finished side facing outward from the property and that posts and support beams must be on the inside or shall be designed as an integral part of the finished surface. He stated that, in a residential zone, our current fence regulations allow for m four foot tu|| fence anywhere on the property. Mr. Barron explained that a six foot tall fence is currently permitted behind the front plane of the building and that double frontage lots are currently limited to a four foot tall henceHe abated that the recommendation is to allow fences up to six feet tall subject to a 10 foot setback from the right of way line or even with the established build line along the atn*ei for residential double frontage lots, a||ovv for 4 hoot to|| fences in front of buildings in commercial zonea, and to establish design standards including type of fencing material and post location. Chairman RobineUcautioned to not define these regulations so narrowly that we adversely affect farm operations and existing fences. Mr. Yarnell commented that from a traffic point of view some fencing materials may impede site distances especially on corner lots. He inquired whether an ornamental fence similar hothe one otMidwest Block and Brick on E. McCarty Street is permitted. Me. McMillan commented that we can write exceptions into the code for agriculture and exceptions for fencing and walls approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2 Garage Size Mr. Barron explained that currently the maximum size of the garage is based on the amount of lot area. He stated that the recommendation is for: (1) a lot size of 1/2 aona or more to allow for a maximum of a 1.250 square foot garage; and (2) a |ni size of 1 aona or more to allow for a maximum ofa1.5UOsquare foot garage. K8c Nunn inquired of the placement of the garage. In response. yWc Barron explained that garages are an accessory structure and are allowed up to five (5) feet from the side property line when at least 60 feet from the front property line. He stated that they must be 10 feet from the primary structure. Ms. McMillan explained that one of the main points in regulating the size of an accessory structure iotoensure that itremains subordinate tothe primary structure. Mr. Nunn commented that we need to ensure that it is not the same size as the main dwelling. Mr. Lester commented that basing it on acreage may be problem given the terrain where only a portion of the lot is buildable. Mr. Vaughan commented that we need to ensure that the building materials are compatible with the main structure. Mr. Nunn suggested that the garage have the same type of exterior materials as the mein dwelling. He commented that the detached garage should not be more than some percentage of the main floor square footage. 3. Buffevyoods Mr. Barron explained that bufforyanduana currently required on both sides ofproperty lines where two different levels ofzoning exist. He recommended requiring bufferyerdsonthe more intensive side of the property line. Mr. Barron explained that Type B Buffoyords require o three Minutes/Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission March 8, 2012 `.• foot tall fence to be installed. He recommended requiring three foot tall fences only where parking lots abut the bufferyard. Mr. Barron explained that topography sometimes results in fences being required, due to bufferyard requirements, which would do little to screen views from neighboring properties due to the difference of terrain between the two properties. He recommended allowing the Department Director to modify bufferyard requirements where extreme topography renders the required bufferyard ineffective. Chairman Robinett inquired whether the Department Director makes the recommendation as to what type of bufferyard material or for each individual case. In response, Ms. McMillan explained that the developer will bring the idea to the Department Director for approval. Mr. Nunn commented that the recommendation sounds reasonable. 4. Outdoor Lighting Mr. Barron explained that the current outdoor lighting standards are primarily for parking lot lighting. He stated that commercial businesses have requested higher levels of lighting for uses such as vehicle sales lots and underneath vehicle canopies at banks and gasoline stations. Mr. Barron explained that staff has received negative comments from City residents about commercial sites being illuminated at all hours of the night. He stated that some communities require half of the lights to be turned off after business hours. Mr. Barron proposed that canopy lighting and vehicle display lots should be permitted an average of 10 footcandles. He explained that large parking lots containing four or more light poles should be required to dim the lighting by 50 percent during hours when they are closed.. Mr. Barron explained that an example of 10 footcandles is the gas station canopy at Hyvee. Mr. Deeken inquired whether that can be made retroactive for those businesses that are heavy light polluters. In response, Ms. McMillan explained that some of the newer sites have the capability of doing that. She stated that Lowes wired their site so that they can reduce the lighting. Ms. McMillan explained that more businesses are becoming energy conscience. Mr. Yarnell inquired whether staff are opposed to the idea of having a limit at the property line versus what is inside the property line. In response, Mr. Barron explained that currently there is language that the lighting cannot go over the property line, but glare from the site is also a major factor. Chairman Robinett inquired whether outdoor lighting applies only to commercial and only to permanent lighting. In response, Mr. Barron explained that there are standards for non- commercial areas. He stated he is not aware of any allowances for temporary lights. 5. Authorized Land Uses in Zoning Districts Mr. Barron explained that he is proposing the following amendments to the zoning matrix: 1. Vocational and Technical Schools, Business Schools, Post -Secondary Colleges, Universities. Recommendation: Permit sites less than 5 acres in the C-1 and C-2 districts. 2. Print/Copy Shops. Recommendation: Permit in the C-1 district 3. Contractor and Trade Shops with indoor Operations and Outdoor Storage. Recommendation: List as a conditional use of the C-2 district. 4. Motor Vehicle Wash. Permit in the C-2 district 5. Dog Grooming, Recommendation: Define dog grooming businesses, indoor operations, and permit in the C-1 and C-2 districts. There was no additional discussion from Commission members. 6. Telecommunication Towers Mr. Barron explained that towers up to 70 feet in height would be a permitted use whereas Minutes/Jefferson City Planning & Zoning Commission March 8, 2012 b/wxans in excess of 70 feet in height would require a conditional use permit. He stated that all towers must bedesigned for mo-|ocaUon. Mr. Nunn asked Mr. Barron h7clarify the buffer distances and setbacks, K8c Barron responded that bower sites would have to adhere to both the buffer distance requirements and setback nsquirements, which have different triggers depending on the zoning and use of the surrounding 7 Parking Standards K8c Barron explained that currently the regulations for a restaurant orbar/tavern is one parking space for every three (3) seats. He ababsd that the recommendation is one space per 100 square feet. Mr. Barron explained that currently regulations for a drive-through restaurant is one space for every four (4) eaaha. He stated that the recommendation is also one space per 100 square feet. Mr. Barron explained that parking regulations for hob*|m are not currently listed in the zoning code. He abehed that the recommendation is one space per room plus 75 percent of the required parking for other uses. He stated that banks are also not |isted, and the recommendation is one space per 25Uo/30Usquare feet. Chairman Robinett asked staff to Mna|ba the proposed amendments and bring them back to the Commission for further discussion at the next meeting. Adjourn. There being no further business, K8c Yarnell moved and K8c Vaughan seconded to adjourn the meeting at8:22p.m The motion passed 8-Owith the following votes: Aye: CoUen, Ueakon, Ouhoi, Leshar, Nunn, Stacey, Vaughan, Yarnell Respectfully Submitted,