Loading...
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.