HomeMy Public PortalAbout2020-01-09 packetIndividuals should contact the ADA Coordinator at (573) 634-6570 to request accommodations or alternative formats as required
under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please allow three business days to process the request.
Please call (573) 634-6410 with questions regarding agenda items.
Notice of Meeting & Tentative Agenda
City of Jefferson Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, January 09, 2020 ~ 5:15 P.M.
City Council Chambers, John G. Christy Municipal Building, 320 East McCarty Street
Enter through Main Lobby
All interested parties will be given a chance to be heard.
TENTATIVE AGENDA
1. Call to Order and Introductions
2. Procedural Matters
Determination of quorum and designation of voting alternates
Call for cases
Receive and review requests for continuance
Receive requests for reordering the agenda
Format of hearing
List of exhibits
3. Adoption of Agenda (as printed or reordered)
4. Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 14, 2019
5. Communications Received
6. New Business/Public Hearings
7. Other Business
Comprehensive Plan Worksession
City staff will give a presentation and lead discussion about the following,
o Community engagement results
o Jefferson City development history and projections.
These discussions will build upon the drafting of the comprehensive plan.
Staff updates on prior cases
8. Adjourn
MINUTES
JEFFERSON CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
November 14, 2019
5:15 p.m.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT ATTENDANCE RECORD
Chris Jordan, Chairman 3 of 3
Michael Lester 2 of 3
Jack Deeken 1 of 3
Blake Markus 2 of 3
Chris Yarnell, Vice Chairman 2 of 3
Bunnie Trickey Cotten 3 of 3
Dale Vaughan 3 of 3
Penny Quigg, Alternate 3 of 3
Emily Fretwell, Alternate 3 of 3
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT
Dean Dutoi 1 of 3
Michelle Mahoney 2 of 3
Hank Vogt, Alternate 2 of 3
COUNCIL LIAISON ABSENT
Carlos Graham, Council Liaison
STAFF PRESENT
Sonny Sanders, Director of Planning & Protective Services
Bryan Wolford, Associate City Counselor
Eric Barron, Planning Manager
Ian Zollinger, Planner
Ahnna Nanoski, Planner
Beth Sweeten, Administrative Assistant
1.Call to Order and Introduction of Members, Ex-officio Members and Staff
Chairman Chris Jordan called the meeting to order. Seven regular members and two alternates
were present. A quorum was present.
Designation of Voting Alternates
The Chairman announced that all present regular members and all present alternates are eligible
to vote.
2. Procedural Matters and Procedures Explained
Mr. Zollinger explained the procedures for the meeting. The following documents were entered
as exhibits. Mr. Zollinger advised that copies of the exhibits are available through the City Clerk
or the Department of Planning and Protective Services:
The City Code of the City of Jefferson, as amended
Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map
Copies of applications under consideration
A list of property owners to whom notices were sent
Affidavit of publication of the public notice in the newspaper
Rules of Procedure, Planning & Zoning Commission
Mr. Zollinger submitted the following items for the record:
Staff reports
Minutes of proceedings
Copies of drawings, plans, and/or renderings under consideration
Letters or memoranda from staff
Materials submitted by the public or applicants pertaining to the cases under consideration
3. Adoption of Agenda
Mr. Lester moved and Ms. Cotten seconded to adopt the agenda. The motion passed 8-0 with the
following votes:
Aye: Lester, Deeken, Markus, Yarnell, Cotton, Vaughan, Quigg, and Fretwell
4. Approval of the Regular Meeting Minutes of September 12, 2019
Ms. Cotten moved and Ms. Mahoney seconded to approve the regular meeting minutes of
September 12, 2019 as printed. The motion passed 8-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Lester, Deeken, Markus, Yarnell, Cotton, Vaughan, Quigg, and Fretwell
5. Communications Received
An email was received from Brian Bernskoetter regarding Case P19020, which was included in
the packet.
6. New Business/Public Hearings
Case No. P19020 – Adoption of the Jefferson city Historic Preservation Plan,
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Request filed by City Staff for the adoption of the Jefferson
City Historic Preservation Plan as a component of the Jefferson City Comprehensive Plan. The
plan outlines goals and strategies that focus and spearhead historic preservation efforts in
Jefferson City.
Ms. Nanoski gave a presentation on the Historic Preservation Plan and explained that the
purpose is to highlight the community’s historical assets and understand how to move forward
with protecting and leveraging those assets. The plan will provide the community with a focused
document, specifically concentrating on the City’s unique issues and opportunities, to guide
historic preservation efforts throughout the City.
Ms. Nanoski went on to explain the five main goals of the plan:
1. Reinforce the role of Jefferson City’s historic core as central to the City’s identity and
long-term economic development strategy – emphasizing quality of place.
2. Activate and revitalize Jefferson City’s historic commercial centers and residential
neighborhoods as distinctive places for living and investing.
3. Connect the City’s historic core to its outlying suburban neighborhoods through
transportation enhancements, parks, open space, trails, bikeways, programing, public
facilities, and other initiatives.
4. Use the City’s historic preservation, neighborhood services, and planning programs
strategically to stimulate private investment in the revitalization of historic areas.
5. Actively engage residents and visitors with information, interpretation, and programming
that reinforces community identity and tells the City’s stories.
Mr. Lester asked for clarification that the Committee will just be making a recommendation and
that each individual item will be evaluated and will go out for public comment and committee
review. Ms. Nanoski confirmed that the plan is a set of recommendations and that any changes
will go through the proper channels.
Mary Shantz, 1928 Hayselton, spoke in favor of this request. She stated that she is the chair of
the Historic Preservation Commission. She said she believes this is a plan that the City needs.
She stated it will be an ongoing process.
Donna Deetz, 720 E High, spoke in favor of this request. She stated that she is the president for
the Historic City of Jefferson. She said she is very much in favor of this request, and believes that
a lot of demolitions and abandonments could have been eliminated, if we had this plan in place
sooner.
Holly Stitt, 1727 South View, Holts Summit, spoke in favor of this request. She stated she has
tried to restore many historic buildings, and likes the fact that this document would give guidance.
No one spoke in opposition to this request.
Ms. Nanoski gave the staff report and staff recommendation.
Discussion took place between commission members and staff, on whether or not rental
inspections need to be part of the plan. Staff reiterated that establishment of a rental inspection
program is a recommendation of the plan, but would have to go through an official public review
process before any decisions to enact such a program.
Mr. Lester moved and Mr. Deeken seconded to approve the resolution to adopt the Jefferson City
Historic Preservation Plan as a component of the Jefferson City Comprehensive Plan. The
motion passed 8-0 with the following votes:
Aye: Lester, Deeken, Markus, Yarnell, Cotton, Vaughan, Quigg, and Fretwell.
7. Other Business
A. Staff Updates on Prior Cases
Prior cases: Case No. P19019 – Staff reported that the Zoning Code Text Amendment
Pertaining to Short Term Rentals will go in front of City Council on November 18.
8. Adjourn. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eric Barron, Assistant Secretary
Jefferson City
Planning & Zoning Commission
January 9, 2020
City Staff
Comprehensive Plan Initial Community
Engagement Results
01/09/20
Planning Division Staff Summary
Comprehensive Plan Initial Community Engagement Results
Overview:
Community engagement is pivotal in building a representative and dynamic comprehensive plan. Since
comprehensive plans influence city-wide development, activity, and preservation, it is important for the
community to help build and buy-into the comprehensive plans vision. Creative and holistic community
engagement helps build this vision. Planning staff hosted several engagement opportunities for the
Jefferson City public to give input to the comprehensive plan. The following illustrates the community
engagement processes and some overarching themes discussed. Along with data collection, research,
and analysis of current conditions, the information gathered from the community builds the
comprehensive plans goals and strategies.
Stakeholder Interviews:
Stakeholder interviews provide the “technicist” perspective on various issues and priorities related to
the comprehensive plan. A total of twenty stakeholder interviews, consisting of community champions,
city council members, and city staff, were conducted and provided a beneficial foundation for
understanding current conditions in Jefferson City. The following issues and assets were consistently
addressed during the stakeholder interviews,
Strengths
• Community involvement and support
• State government
• Low cost of living
• Public services
Opportunities for growth
• MSP redevelopment
• Increase affordable and rental housing options
• Heritage tourism
• Workforce development
Public Engagement:
Planning staff hosted three community workshops to gain the publics perspective on various planning
topics relevant to the comprehensive plan. The workshops began with an informational presentation,
educating attendees about comprehensive planning, followed by a small group discussion. Attendees
filled out a “workshop survey” containing 16 prompts which gauged their perspective on various
planning themes. Then they were allowed to explore various topics more in detail with the group. An
additional mapping workshop occurred to allow for the public to interact with the information in a
different way. An online survey was also used to capture information from individuals who could not
attend the workshops. The following illustrates the discussion from the public engagement,
Jefferson City has a variety of housing options, including rental and ownership opportunities.
• 50% believe that there is a variety of housing options in Jefferson City.
• 25% believe that there is not a variety of housing options in Jefferson City.
• Affordable housing and blight were consistently discussed during public engagement processes.
Jefferson City has appropriate infrastructure and facilities that are suitable for the public’s needs.
• 40% of participants feel neutral about the infrastructure and facilities in Jefferson City.
New development (or redevelopment) in Jefferson City enhances the built environment.
New development (or redevelopment) in Jefferson City respects the natural environment.
• Participants want to see more development downtown, on Capitol Avenue, and in city center
neighborhoods.
Implementing green building design, infrastructure, and practices is an important component of
Jefferson City’s future growth.
• 58% of participants believe that it is important to focus on sustainability.
Jefferson City encourages good water quality resource management by protecting streams,
watersheds, and floodplains.
• A lot of participants are concerned about stormwater management.
Grass-root economic development and revitalization is encouraged in Jefferson City.
Economic success depends on Jefferson City accommodating growth and demand trends.
• Participants believe that workforce development, partnerships with educational institutions,
and an improved housing environment will strengthen Jefferson City’s economy.
Jefferson City is efficiently connected to regional activity centers and communities in mid-Missouri.
• Most participants feel neural or agree that Jefferson City is efficiently connected to regional
activity centers and communities in mid-Missouri.
Quality of life in Jefferson City is affected by accessibility to parks, recreational facilities, and open
space.
• 87% believe that quality of life is tied to access to parks, recreational facilities, and open space.
• The Jefferson City greenway and park system was mentioned as a positive and highly beneficial
amenity throughout the City’s community engagement process.
Jefferson City has transportation infrastructure/services connecting jobs and other need services
(recreation and daily life needs).
• 43% do not believe that Jefferson City has appropriate infrastructure/services to connect jobs
and other needed services.
• Participants want to see sidewalks and public transportation improved.
Quality of life in Jefferson City is affected by accessibility to arts and culture facilities.
• 75% of participants believe that quality of life is tied to access to arts and culture facilities.
• Participants believe that arts and culture amenities will attract and retain residents.
Quality of life in Jefferson City is affected by accessibility to healthy and locally grown food options.
• 67% of participants believe that quality of life is tied to access to healthy and locally grown food
options.
Accessible, quality, and a variety of public services is a strength of Jefferson City.
Accessible, quality, and a variety of health care options is a strength of Jefferson City.
• Participants generally think Jefferson City is safe and that public safety services are good.
• Participants believe that there are good health care options in (or adjacent to) Jefferson City.
Hazard mitigation and recovery is efficient in Jefferson City.
• Participants are impressed with the way the community responded to the 2019 tornado and
flooding events.
Conclusion:
Extensive citizen participation has highlighted areas of strength and opportunity in Jefferson City. More
community engagement will occur late spring/early summer of 2020. The draft plan, containing goals
and strategies, will be presented to the public. Ensuring that the vision and items listed in the plan is
representative of the community is extremely important. Hopefully a greater quantity of individuals will
participate in that next round of public engagement. Planning staff will continue to research and analyze
planning topics that need to be addressed to create a productive comprehensive plan.
Jefferson City
Planning & Zoning Commission
January 9, 2020
City Staff
Jefferson City Development History and
Projections
Jefferson City Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff Report: Development Trends through the Decades
and Projections for the Future
Date of Draft: January 2, 2020
This report is a DRAFT prepared by Planning Division staff, and is presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for informational purposes as part of the ongoing Comprehensive Plan update. The content of the
report is still a work in progress.
Development through the Decades
This portion of the report details the development of Jefferson City and surrounding area since 1960. The
information was compiled largely from air photos and Cole County Assessors information. Snapshots of each
decade show new areas opened up for development, with new major commercial areas and new major roads
highlighted. The maps show the general development trend across the area at a large scale, generally at a
subdivision level. Actual development within a subdivision could span several decades, which is not reflected in
the map. Park areas and many community buildings are not included in the map, and many areas that developed
slowly over many decades (such as along some of the original county roads) are also not included. Historic air
photos for the Holts Summit area (prior to 1990) were not immediately available, but staff plan to fill in the
development history of that area at a future date. The road network shown on the maps is the modern/current
road network, staff felt it important to keep the spatial framework for the viewer constant through the map
series.
Housing Unit Growth
The history of housing unit growth in the Jefferson City/Cole County/Southern Callaway County area is based on
decennial Census data. The 2020 data is an estimate based on Cole County Assessors information and building
permit information. The future growth projection is a simple average of the last two decades and should serve as
a starting point for discussion.
Residential Growth Model Results
As part of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (CAMPO) update of the 5-year Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP) in Spring of 2019, a land use growth model was employed. This model focused
primarily on residential growth, with the model identifying probable locations of future residential growth. The
primary factors that the model used to forecast development were the terrain (flat land), availability of sewer
service, and access to major transportation routes. The results of the model spread the forecasted residential
growth over a very wide area, with residential densities below what would be expected to actually occur. This is
useful in identifying probable locations of future growth, but staff would prefer to not focus on the housing unit
densities produced by the model and instead focus on the areas highlighted by the model as being the most likely
locations where future growth would occur.
Development through the Decades
1960’s
In the 1960’s, development on the fringes of the city, which had been occurring since the post war period, began
to accelerate. Commercial development began to extend westward along Missouri Boulevard (previously named
Dunklin Boulevard). Southwest Boulevard had been constructed in the late 1950’s, which opened up new areas
for development on the western side of the city and connected those areas to the expanding commercial
opportunities along Missouri Boulevard. Several new factories and other industrial uses were constructed along
Industrial Drive. Construction of the new modern 4-lane highways (Highway 50/63 and Highway 54) through
Jefferson City, as well as connecting streets (including the Stadium Boulevard connection to Lafayette Street and
the Ellis Boulevard connection to Seven Hills Road) provided for better transportation connections around the
city. This also set the stage for continued expansion of the city and development of outlying commercial areas
over the following decades.
1970’s
In the 1970’s the city continued to expand into areas made accessible by new highway construction and the
continued buildout of residential subdivisions, with several new commercial nodes being developed around the
outskirts of the city. Commercial development continued to expand westward along Missouri Boulevard, notably
with two new major retail developments being the competing K-Mart and Walmart department store businesses.
New commercial development proceeded along the outer roads of the new Highway 54 on the south side of the
city (Jefferson Street and Christy Drive) as well as the first phases of a commercial node at the intersection of
Highway 54 and Southwest Boulevard/Ellis Boulevard. A commercial node at the intersection of Industrial Drive
and West Truman Boulevard began to develop including construction of a Gerbes supermarket. The Capital Mall
was constructed in the later part of the decade, with new commercial and residential development surrounding
this new major commercial center proceeding over the next couple of decades. The CheseBrough-Ponds
(Currently Unilever) manufacturing plant on West Truman Boulevard and the Scholastic facility on East McCarty
Street were also constructed during this decade.
1980’s
Commercial development in the 1980’s largely consisted of the expansion of areas where development had
begun in the previous two decades. The westward development of commercial property along Missouri
Boulevard continued. West Truman Boulevard was constructed, providing a replacement to the previous North
Ten Mile Drive road connection between Industrial Drive and the Capital Mall area, opening up new areas for
commercial development. The Stadium Boulevard connection between Missouri Boulevard and Edgewood Drive
was constructed, opening up yet another area for commercial development. A node of industrial development
was constructed at the intersection of Fairgrounds and Scruggs Station Roads. Highway 179 was also extended
from Truman Boulevard/Industrial Drive to Missouri Boulevard/Highway 50, providing for an important
north/south connection on the western side of the City.
1990’s
The 1990’s saw the construction of new roadways and highway interchanges that opened up areas for new
commercial development and continued residential development on the outskirts of the city. New big box retail
department stores (Walmart Supercenter and Target) were constructed near the intersection of Missouri
Boulevard and Stadium Boulevard, as well as the continued development of commercial property along Missouri
Boulevard. The first phase of construction of West Edgewood Drive was completed along with the southern
extension of Wildwood Drive, providing a new area for commercial development and eventual east/west
connection to the expanding west side of the city. Construction of Eastland Drive and a new highway interchange
at Eastland and Highway 50 at the close of the 80’s resulted in a new east/west link on the eastern side of the city
and a commercial node developed at this new interchange through the 1990’s.
2000’s
In the 2000’s, the West Edgewood Drive expansion to Fairgrounds Road/South Country Club Drive was
completed, with accompanying commercial and residential development in the area. A new commercial area
along Creektrail Drive near the Stadium Boulevard/West Edgewood intersection was rapidly built out. Several
large scale commercial retail developments occurred on Missouri Boulevard near the intersection with Wildwood
Drive, as well as the first phase of the Stoneridge Village retail development near the existing Walmart
Supercenter. A second Walmart Supercenter and associated intersection improvements was constructed on the
eastern side of the City. A significant amount of redevelopment along Missouri Boulevard also occurred, as
commercial buildings along this major commercial artery reached the end of their life and were replaced with
more modern commercial structures. Highway 179 was extended from Missouri Boulevard to Highway 54,
providing for a much needed north/south connection within the western portion of the City.
2010’s
In the 2010’s, as the economic recession that began at the close of the previous decade took hold, the pace of
development slowed, especially with respect to residential development. However, there was still a substantial
amount of commercial development across the city. The Stoneridge Village Development was expanded with
two big box department stores and infrastructure in place for future development. The trend of redevelopment
along Missouri Boulevard continued, as the combination of aging commercial structures and lack of developable
property along this popular commercial corridor put pressure on efficient commercial utilization of property.
Residential growth moderated during the 2010’s, with a lower level of residential home development and an
increasing amount of that development occurring in unincorporated Cole County or in the Holts Summit area as
the flatter/developable property within the Jefferson City limits began to become scarce. The new St. Mary’s
Hospital and the Mission Drive interchange at Highway 179 was constructed and the new Capital City High School
was completed at the close of the decade.
Housing Unit Growth and Projections
Historical housing unit growth in the Jefferson City/Cole County/Southern Callaway County area has fluctuated
through the decades, with very rapid growth during the 1970’s, moderate levels of growth most other decades,
and a lower level of growth over the past decade. The following information is gathered primarily from US
Census counts, with 2020 estimates relying on Assessors Department and Building Permit information. 2030
projections are a mathematical average of the past two decades growth, and that growth is extrapolated to the
City and Counties based on the previous decades growth percentages.
Housing Unit Growth and Projection
Jefferson
City
Cole
County
Southern
Callaway
TOTAL Growth
1950 6768 2833 750 10351
1960 8496 3543 850 12889 2538
1970 10736 4172 958 15866 2977
1980 13482 7644 2066 23192 7326
1990 15448 9630 2254 27332 4140
2000 16987 11938 3176 32101 4769
2010 18852 13482 3821 36155 4054
2020 est 19589 14372 4200 38161 2006
2030 proj 20641 15642 4741 41023 2862
Residential Growth Model Results
Description of the Model
The growth model developed as part of the CAMPO MTP utilized a variety of attributes to determine the
likelihood of development, and applied the forecasted residential development over the next 20 years to the
properties that were best situated for development. The resulting data was then transformed into a grid map, to
show the general spread of development potential rather than property specific potential (which the confidence
of the model was never expected to support). Three of the heaviest weighted factors for determining
development potential were transportation access, sanitary sewer service, and the suitability of the terrain.
The model spread the forecasted development over a large number of properties, with a small number of units
applied to any individual property. The results of the model are best described as identifying areas where future
residential development is likely to occur, but would not be expected to occur everywhere that the model results
highlight (the growth rate of Jefferson City is not high enough to support that level of growth).
Results of the Model
The results of the model support the trend of development occurring toward the western areas of the City/Urban
area. This is a trend that has been occurring for several decades, and is largely a result of the availability of flat
land suitable for residential development, where other areas and edges of the city have substantially less flat land
suitable for such development. Another result of the model is the predication for continued residential
development in the Holts Summit area (although staff have concerns that the Callaway County results may be
somewhat flawed due to difficulties in melding the Cole and Callaway County base data combined with known
pending development looking very strong on the map). Weak results for the eastern side of the City are
seemingly a result of lack of reasonably flat land suitable for residential development, along with less sewer
infrastructure and the presence of the Moreau River. The south side of the city produced a moderate result, with
the area near Route B and Lorenzo Greene Drive being highlighted as well as the outskirts of Wardsville.