HomeMy Public PortalAboutORD14277 I
SUBSTITUTE
• BILL NO. 2007-103
SPONSORED BY COUNCILMAN KLINDT
ORDINANCE NO. l��rl -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AMENDING CHAPTER 32
STREETS AND SIDEWALKS, CHAPTER 33, SUBDIVISION CODE AND CHAPTER 35,
ZONING CODE PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS.
WHEREAS, provisions pertaining to the construction of sidewalks appear in several
Chapters of the City Code, are somewhat inconsistent, and contribute to
confusion; and
WHEREAS, clarification of the regulations and consolidation into Chapter 32, as much
as possible, would eliminate such confusion;
i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JEFFERSON, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 32, Streets and Sidewalks, Section 32-103, is hereby amended
as follows:
Section 32-103. Sidewalks Required.
A. No permit shall be issued for the reconstruction or construction of a new building, or a building
addition containing more than 2,500 square feet of gross floor area, or a new or expanded parking
lot containing more than 10 parking spaces,excluding 1 and 2 family residential,unless a sidewalk
exists adjacent to the property or unless the plans for the building or parking lot provide for the
construction of such a sidewalk. The requirements of this section shall apply to reconstruction,
cumulative building additions and parking lot expansions following adoption of this ordinance but
shall not apply to the rehabilitation or renovation of existing buildings or parking lots or the
construction of accessory buildings.
B. No eertifieate of ceetipaney shall be issued for any building or parking lot deseribed in subseltion
of issannee of the eertifieate of oeetipaney.
e. Upon appiieation of ti2e propeity owner,die city counei! may waive die requiIernent of this see
to provide pians For and construet a Mdewalk if the -otineil determines that tile sidevvalk is not
needed o. that the impae ed deveiepment does not jttstif�the equitenlent that tile
• Newfinserted language appears thus. 2007-103 Relocated language appears thus. -
Deleted language appears thus Page 1 Language added after 10/18/2007appears thus.
Language added on 1117/2007 appears THUS
install sidewalks adjaeent to the pioperty and levy speeial assessments against tile property
constmetion of the sidewalks.
•
E). fit determining
., the need fo. the sidemalk mid whethet the impact of the poposed developni
justifies the m4tifiement that the sidewalk be constructed, the comicil shall conside, all teleVaIlt
fadvi a, Such •
The density of existing ot futtite development that would pue,ate ase Of the ,
sidewalk,4. The existence of sidewalks in the ama that would connect with
- iucwa&,
S. %%etfiet the tei�ain is ouch that a sidewalk is physically feasible to consti 6. :Hie extent to which trees mid landscaping would be impmted by the ,
S. VAtethei the side maHc may need to be i ebuil t due to plans to vv iden or I econsh act tile sh
,
B. Sidewalks shall be constructed in new Minor Subdivisions, as defined by Chanter 33, Subdivision
Code.
C. Sidewalk Waiver Application. Upon application by the owner, the Director of Community
Development may approve a waiver to sidewalks required by Paragraphs A and B above,as
• provided herein.A waiver may be granted when:
1. The City has PRE-EXISTING WRITTEN plans to widen or reconstruct the adjacent
street which would require replacement of the sidewalk WITHIN TEN(10)YEARS
OF THE APPLICATION FOR WAIVER,or
2. An engineering study accepted by the City demonstrates that the terrain or geographic
features of the location are such that it is not reasonable to construct sidewalks;or
3. An engineering study accepted by the City demonstrates an alternative pedestrian way
provides an acceptable alternative.
D. Sidewalk Waiver Fee and Sidewalk Fund
1. If a waiver is granted,the owner shall contribute a fee,in lieu of construction,to the
sidewalk fund. The fee shall be calculated on the sidewalk area that is waived, and
initially shall be $6 per square foot OR THE AVOIDED COST OF
CONSTRUCTION, WHICHEVER IS LESS. This fee shall be established
REVIEWED ANNUALLY by the Director of Community Development BY
CONSULTING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE vvith the consent of the C4tv
R.S. Means
Construction Cost Data Services. .IF SUCH
ANNUAL REVIEW REVEALS THAT THE FEE REQUIRES ADJUSTMENT TO
PRESERVE THE PROPORTIONAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTING BETWEEN THE
INITIAL FEE AND CURRENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS,THE DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAY MAKE SUCH ADJUSTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVELY WITH THE CONSENT OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR
• Newfinserted language appears thus. 2007-103 Relocated language appears thus. -
Deleted language appears teas Page 2 Language added after 10/18/2007appears thus.
Language added on 11/7/2007 appears THUS
AND UPON NOTICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
• 2. There is herewithBY established a SEPARATE sidewalk fund in which fees collected
from sidewalk waivers shall be deposited.Funds shall be used ONLY for purposes of
construction of sidewalks. THE SUMS IN SUCH FUND WHICH ARE NOT
EXPENDED SHALL ACCUMULATE FROM YEAR TO YEAR.
E. Appeal of Denial of Waiver._
1. The denial of a waiver by the Director may be appealed to the Board of
Adjustment.
a. An applicant aggrieved by the decision of the director may file a written
appeal to the Board of Adjustment within 10 days of the decision of the
director;
b. Upon receipt of the appeal,the Board of Adjustment shall schedule a hearing
on the appeal
C. The burden of proof at the hearing shall be upon the applicant to show the
required findings have been met.
d. In order to find that the Wwaiver should be granted the Board must find:
i. The City has IMMINENT plans to widen or reconstruct the adiacent
street which would require replacement of the sidewalk;or
ii. An engineering study accepted by the City demonstrates that the
terrain or geographic features of the location are such that it is not
reasonable to construct sidewalks,or
• iii. An engineering study accepted by the City demonstrates an
alternative pedestrian way provides an acceptable alternative.
e. The Board of Adjustment may not consider:
L Whether the proposed sidewalk connects to another sidewalk; or
ii. Whether the proposed sidewalk serves to advance
connectivity.
2.
shall make the denial of the Directot .,,tdi and void. The Board of Ad*
advise the Bitectot of its findintr, IF THE BOARD FINDS IN FAVOR OF THE
APPLICANT IT SHALL DIRECT THE DIRECTOR TO ENTER A NEW ORDER
CONSISTENT WITH ITS FINDINGS.
3. The Director shall,within 45 days of the date he is notified of the decision of the Board
of Adjustment, issue a new decision. vvitich shall include specific findines Of fact Which
support his decisiomi. The Director shall consider the Board of AMustinent's dec6sioxt
but lie is not botind by the decision.
4. THE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE GRANTING OR DENIAL OF A SIDEWALK
WAIVER BY EITHER THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR
• Newlnserted language appears thus. 2007-103 Relocated language appears thus. -
Deleted language appears thu& Page 3 Language added after 10/18/2007appears thus.
Language added on 11/7/2007 appears THUS
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE CITY
• COUNCIL WITHIN THIRTY(30)DAYS FOLLOWING SUCH DECISION.
5. AN APPLICANT WHO IS
AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE BOARD may appeal the decision to the
Circuit Court within 30 days of the date of the written findings of fact.
F. Sidewalks shall be constructed in new Major Subdivisions(as defined by Chapter 33 Subdivision
Code) as follows, unless the owner requests, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews and
the Council approves, a variance under(1)or(2)below.
1. When the Council determines in a Major subdivision that, through submission of an
engineering study that includes appropriate details such as cross-sections,grading plans,
and requirements for sidewalks because of the presence of unusual circumstances or
conditions, including without limitation, top conditions, and that the strict application of
the requirements for sidewalks would either prevent, or present a serious obstacle to the
formation of a plat for the reasonable use and development of land, the Council may
permit the owner to vary from the requirements for sidewalks or the location thereof
2. The Council may permit a developer to vary from the requirement for sidewalks if the
Commission determines that an Alternate Pedestrian Way Plan submitted by the developer
with the preliminary plat provides adequate access throughout the subdivision.Such a plan
must provide a continuous system ofpaved walkways located within easements dedicated
as pedestrian ways. The Council may require such width not to exceed ten (10)feet and
such illumination as may be appropriate to assure safety.
• G. Construction Standards.
1. Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with the following street classifications.
Street classifications and location of sidewalks on local or cul-de-sac streets shall be
determined by the Director.
Street Type Sidewalk Sidewalk Width
Requirement
Arterial Both sides S feet
Collector Both sides S feet
Local Commercial or Both sides 5 feet
commercial cul-de-sac
Residential cul-de-sac X100 feet or One side 4 feet
local street
Aene -f fee t Oft, ideo
• New/inserted language appears thus. 2007-103 Relocated language appears thus. -
Deleted language appears thas Page 4 Language added after 10/18/2007appears thus.
Language added on 11/7/2007 appears THUS
• 2. Sidewalks shall be located a minimum of three(3)feet from the back of the curb where
possible, or other location as approved by the Director.
3. Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City
of Jefferson Standards on file in the Department of Community Development.
H. Time for Construction
1. The developer shall install all sidewalks, as required by this section, or by the Council
pursuant to a variance as allowed by this section, not later than two(2)years after the date
when the abutting street is accepted or not later than rve(S) years after the first
building permit is issued, whichever comes first;provided however, that the sidewalk for
each lot within a subdivision shall be completed and approved before an occupancy permit
or a structure on the lot is issued..
2. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any building or parking lot for which a
sidewalk is required unless the sidewalk has been constructed or the property owner has
provided a bond, cash escrow or letter of credit or other instrument acceptable to the
Director of Community development guaranteeing construction of the sidewalk within not
more than six(6)months of issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
I. Enforcement
1. If the sidewalks required by this section, or alternate paved walkways required by the
Council pursuant to a variance as allowed by this section, are not completed within two
• (2)years from the date abutting streets are accepted, or within five(S)years after the first
building permit is issued,whichever comes first, the building official shall decline to issue
any further permits of any type to the developer in conjunction with the subdivision where
the violation is occurring, or in conjunction with any other activity at any location
requiring permits by the building official, until the violation is cured. In addition, the
Council may
a. Impose a penalty on the developer, in an amount not to exceed One Hundred
Dollars($100.00)per day for each day the violation persists.
b. Cause the sidewalks to be completed at the City's expense, and may cause a
special tax bill to issue as to each lot within the subdivision for which the City has
incurred the expense ofconstructing sidewalks, in an amount of two(2)times such
dense incurred, together with the amount of any penalties accrued under
subsection a, above. Any special tax bill issued pursuant to this subsection may
be enforced in the same manner as a tax bill issued for the improvement of a
sidewalk within the City.
C. Other Recourse. Nothing within this section shall impair the ability of the
City or a property owner to seek any other recourse against a developer
or failing to install sidewalks as required by this section. (Ord. 13628, q3,
10-6-2003)
• Newfinserted language appears thus. 2007-103 Relocated language appears thus.
Deleted language appears thus Page 5 Language added after 10/18/2007appears-thus.
Language added on 1117/2007 appears THUS
Section 2. Chapter 33, Subdivision Code, Section 33-9, Construction of
Improvements, Paragraph D, is hereby amended as follows:
Sec.33-9.Construction of improvements.
D. Construction of sidewalks in subdivisions shall be in accordance with provisions in Chapter 32.
D. O both ii sides of C. On at least one(1)side oflocal stieets in platted mbdiioision sections
d. On at least one (1) aide of cal-de-sacs vveT fom hanched (400) fcct in.
length,street to the centez of the cul-de-sac btrib)in platted subdi6sivn Sections.-
e. Sidewalks shall be conatiacted in item Majo. subdivisions as requiIed above
Mbinission of an engineeiing study that includes appiopinte de
stich as c,
• > plans,
because of the Ftesence of mimt
conditions,
m! cimmnstances v,including without
> top conditions, and that the strict
application of the requirements fo. sidevvalks would either pevent,Or
adequate Access tit,ottyhout the subdivisimi. S tich 2t plan intist p,ovide
to exceed ten (10) fcet and such i1hunination as inay be app,vF,iate to
assure safety-
2. Side tv alks shail be consti acted in ne w Minot subdivisionsas,eqUiredin 1. abovew!less
the mmer > the eonnnission reviews,
be consideted,sach as,
development;
• Newfinserted language appears thus. 2007-103 Relocated language appears thus.
Deleted language appears than Page 6 Language added after 10/18/2007appears-thus.
Language added on 11/7/2007 appears THUS
• the r,
d. The existence of side walks in the a.en that would comiect with a sidewalk almg
the-development,
e. VAiethet the te..aiti is such that aide tv alk.a.e physically feasible to comb ,
constitiction of the sidewalk;
32-86 and located a mittimm.,vftfz.ee(3) feet fimi the back of the ctub.-
4. Time fo. (3mistiactimi
• ,
5. Eitfoicemetit
a. if the sidewalks equited by this bectim, vi altemate paved walkways reqUited
by the E3owicil jimsawit tv allowed by this section, me tiot
completed within two (2) yeam fiom lite date abottirig sheets ate accepted, ot
fit st,the baiiding,official SiTaii decline to issue any furthe, Fe,mits of aity type to
.ts by the buildixig official, witil the violation is cmed. fit addition, the
E3ouacil may
(2) E3=ise the sidewalk. to be completed at the E3ity';, expetise, atid ma
cause a speciaf tzm bill to issue as to cach lut withizi the subdivision fm
nit amomit of two (2) times stich expense inctmed, togethe. with the
• Newfinserted language appears thus. 2007-103 Relocated language appears thus.
Deleted language appears thus Page 7 Language added after 10/18/2007appears thus.
Language added on 11/7/2007 appears THUS
t=bill issued pursuant to this subsection nay be enftn ced in the sarne
b. Otli= Riecomse.Nothing
.,within this section Miall impait the ability of the City
instali sidewalks as z equi,ed by this section. (E).d. i3628, §3, 10-6-2003)
Section 3. Chapter 33, Subdivision Code, Section 33-13, Variations from
Provisions, is hereby amended as follows:
Sec.33-13.Variations from provisions.
A. When the Director of Community Development
Development-determines that in a particular instance an owner cannot possibly or
practically observe the requirement ofanyprovision or provisions ofthis chapter,EXCEPT
IN REGARDS TO CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS,because of the presence of
unusual circumstances or conditions,and that the strict application of the requirements of
such provisions would either prevent,or present a serious obstacle to the formulation of a
plat for the reasonable use and development of land in subdivision form,the Director shall
make a written recommendation to the Commission that a variation from the requirements
of such provisions be permitted and state the facts upon which the recommendation is
made. (Ord. 13600, §12,9-2-2003)
B. The Commission,upon consideration ofthe facts presented with the recommendation,may
permit the owner to vary from the requirements of such provisions if it determines that the
intent of this chapter is not being violated and adjoining property is not materially or
adversely affected.
C. Variation OR WAIVERS from the requirement to construct sidewalks in new major
subdivisions shall be governed by the variance provisions contained in Chapter 32.
Section 4. Chapter 35, Zoning, Section 35-56, is hereby amended by
adding the following:
Sec.35-56. Sidewalks.
In some cases, the City Code, specifically Chapter 32 -Streets and Sidewalks and Chapter 33 -
Subdivisions, requires the construction of sidewalks along existing or new streets. All proposed
developments,whether Permitted,Conditional, Special Exception or those in PUD Planned Unit
Development districts,shall comply with
City E0 n'ntil9 Chapter 32-Streets and Sidewalks.
(Ord.No. 14023, §4,3-20-2006)
Section 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and approval.
Newlnserted language appears thus. 2007-103 Relocated language appears thus.
Deleted language appears teas Page 8 Language added after 10/18/2007appears thus.
Language added on 11/7/2007 appears THUS
Passed: ��, �Da oved: U 7
Pr ' in cer r
ATT APPR E AS T F M:
ity Cle City CKOun,selor
•
• Newfinserted language appears thus. 2007-103 Relocated language appears thus.
Deleted language appears tHas Page 9 Language added after 10/18/2007appears-thus.
Language added on 11/7/2007 appears THUS
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
• Text Amendment to Chapter 32, Streets and Sidewalks
Text Amendments to Chapter 33, Subdivision Code
Text Amendment to Chapter 35, Zoning Code
The City Council of the City of Jefferson, Missouri, will hold a public hearing on Monday,
November 19, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the John G. Christy Municipal
Building, 320 East McCarty Street, to consider amendments to the text of Chapter 32, Streets
and Sidewalks, Chapter 33, Subdivision Code, and Chapter 35, Zoning Code. The purpose of
the public hearing is to consider proposed amendments pertaining to the construction of
sidewalks. The complete text amendments are available for inspection during regular business
hours at the Department of Community Development, Planning Division, Room 120, John G.
Christy Municipal Building, 320 East McCarty Street, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Phyllis Powell, City Clerk
City of Jefferson, Missouri
P.T.: Friday, November 2, 2007
Department of Community Development
320 East McCarty Street, Room 120
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Contact: Anne Stratman or Janice McMillan
Phone (573) 634-6475 Fax(573) 634-6457
I II
I
•
EXCERPT OF UNNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES
JEFFERSON CITY
PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
Boone/Bancroft Room
John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty Street
October 18, 2007
Committee Members
Present Attendance
Dan Klindt, Chairman 5 of 6
Mike Harvey, Vice Chairman 5 of 6
Cindy Layton 5 of 6
Jim Penfold 6 of 6
Committee Members
Absent
Jane Smith 5 of 6
Staff Present
Pat Sullivan, Director of Community Development
Janice McMillan, Deputy Director for Planning and Transportation
Eric Barron, Senior Planner
Eric Seaman, Deputy Director for Wastewater Utilities
Matt Morasch, Deputy Director for Public Works
• Britt Smith, Streets/Parking Division Director
David Bange, Engineering Division Director
Drew Hilpert, Associate City Counselor
Brenda Wunderlich, Administrative Assistant
Potential Sidewalk Ordinance Changes
Ms. McMillan referred to her memo and draft ordinance changes in the Committee packet.
There was discussion among Committee members and staff.
Councilman Penfold moved and Councilperson Layton seconded to remove the "5400 feet"
for the Residential cul-de-sac and remove the Street Type "Residential cul-de-sac <400 feet"
completely as well as the footnote in Section 32-103.G, motion carried.
Councilman Harvey moved and Councilman Penfold seconded to refer the ordinance
changes with the amendments to the City Council with recommendation to approve, motion carried.
•
MINUTES
• JEFFERSON CITY
PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
Boone/Bancroft Room
John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty Street
September 20, 2007
Committee Members
Present Attendance
Dan Klindt, Chairman 4 of 5
Mike Harvey, Vice Chairman 4 of 5
Cindy Layton 4 of 5
Jim Penfold 5 of 5
Jane Smith 5 of 5
Staff Present
Pat Sullivan, Director of Community Development
Janice McMillan, Deputy Director for Planning and Transportation
Eric Seaman, Deputy Director for Wastewater Utilities
Matt Morasch, Deputy Director for Public Works
David Bange, Engineering Division Director
Don Fontana, Civil Engineer
Melva Fast, Assistant City Administrator
Drew Hilpert, Associate City Counselor
Brenda Wunderlich, Administrative Assistant
Chairman Klindt called the meeting to order at 7:50 a.m. A quorum was present at this time. The
• following guest was present: Mayor John Landwehr; Roger Randolph; Heath Clarkston-Home Builders
Association; and Kris Hilgedick-News Tribune.
1. Introductions
2. Approval of the minutes of the August 23, 2007 meeting
Councilman Harvey requested the minutes be changed to state Chairman Klindt called the meeting
to order rather that Vice Chairman Harvey as he was not at the meeting. Councilperson Layton moved and
Councilperson Smith seconded to approve the minutes with the change requested by Councilman Harvey,
motion carried.
3. New Business
1. Sidewalk Replacement Program requested by Councilman Jim Penfold (Matt Morasch)
Mr. Morasch explained Councilman Penfold had asked what it would cost to do a sidewalk
replacement program. He referred to his memo in the Committee packet which explains the cost of the
program. Staff feels the program would take an additional staff person with a cost of approximately
$300,000 to implement.
There was discussion among staff and Committee members regarding funding, the Neighborhood
Improvement Program, liability issues, and safety concerns.
Chairman Klindt requested this item continue to be reviewed and remain on the Committee agenda
for discussion.
• 2. Potential Sidewalk Ordinance Changes (Janice McMillan)
Mr. Sullivan explained the recommended changes address the process whereby a sidewalk waiver
may be granted as follows:
Minutes/Jefferson City Public works and Planning Committee 2
September 20,2007
1. The City has plans to widen or reconstruct the adjacent street which would require
• replacement of the sidewalk;
2. An engineering study accepted by the City demonstrates that the terrain or geographic
features of the location are such that it is not reasonable to construct sidewalks;
3. An engineering study accepted by the City demonstrates an alternative pedestrian way
provides an acceptable alternative.
There was discussion among staff, Committee members and guests present regarding discouraging
requests for waivers, the suggested fee in lieu of a sidewalk and how and when it should be adjusted,
exemptions to building sidewalks, and the language in Item G. Appeal to the Board of Adjustment.
Councilman Penfold moved and Councilperson Layton seconded to change Section E.2. to the
following: "The fee shall be calculated on the sidewalk area that is waived, and initially shall be $6 per
square foot or the avoided cost of construction whichever is less. This fee shall be established by the
Director of Community Development with the consent of the City Administrator.", motion carried.
Mr. Hilpert asked that Section G be changed to state the appeal to the Board of Adjustment is only
for the waiver in Section D and not the cost in Section E.
Chairman Klindt asked that Committee members email any additional comments to Mr. Sullivan.
Staff was directed to bring the ordinance revisions for discussion to the next Committee meeting.
3. Milling and Overlay(Matt Morasch)
Mr. Morasch referred to his memo dated August 16, 2007 regarding the milling and overlay funding.
There was general discussion regarding the issue.
• 4. Electrical Easements through Jefferson City Memorial Airport(David Bange)
Mr. Bange explained one of the phases of the AmerenUE power line which serves the Airport Tower
and the National Guard shorted out. In order to continue service, AmerenUE temporarily strung a cable
across the ground causing an unsafe condition. AmerenUE wishes to lay a new line and are requesting an
easement in order to meet the requirements of the FAA and AmerenUE. The old line, built in the 1960's did
not have an easement.
Mr. Morasch stated the easement should include language stating if the City did need the right-of-
way in the future AmerenUE would be responsible for the cost of moving their line.
Councilman Penfold moved and Councilman Harvey seconded to recommend approval by the City
Council of the Electrical Easements through Jefferson City Memorial Airport with staff recommendations,
motion carried.
4. Other Business
• Surplus City Owned Properties
Mr. Sullivan stated staff has compiled a list of City owned properties which appear to be surplus as
requested by the Committee and a map of those properties is included in the packet.
5. Adjournment
Councilperson Layton moved and Councilman Penfold seconded to adjourn the meeting (9:20 a.m.)
motion carried.
Res ectfully Submitted,
Brenda Wunderlich
Administrative Assistant
MINUTES
• JEFFERSON CITY
PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
Boone/Bancroft Room
John G. Christy Municipal Building
320 East McCarty Street
August 23, 2007
Committee Members
Present Attendance
Dan Kliindt, Chairman 3 of 4
Jane Smith 4 of 4
Jim Penfold 4 of 4
Committee Members
Absent
Mike Harvey, Vice Chairman 3 of 4
Cindy Layton 3 of 4
Staff Present
Pat Sullivan, Director of Community Development
Janice McMillan, Deputy Director for Planning and Transportation
Eric Seaman, Deputy Director for Wastewater Utilities
Matt Morasch, Deputy Director for Public Works
Britt Smith, Streets/Parking Division Director
David Bange, Engineering Division Director
Don Fontana, Civil Engineer
Shane Wade, Civil Engineer
• Drew Hilpert, Associate City Counselor
Brenda Wunderlich, Administrative Assistant
Chairman Klindt called the meeting to order at 7:45 a.m. A quorum was present at this time. The
following guest was present: Roger Randolph; Kathi Harness, Ameresco; John Koneck, PE, Koneck
Engineering, LLC; Jacinta Douma,Ameresco; Rick Graham,Allied Waste; and Kris Hilgedick-News Tribune.
1. Introductions
2. Approval of the minutes of the July19,2007meeting
Councilperson Smith moved and Councilman Penfold seconded to approve the minutes of the
July 19, 2007 meeting, motion carried.
3. New Business
1. Crest, Meier, Castle Stormwater Project Bids(Matt Morasch)
Mr. Morasch explained the project includes the construction/replacement of 840 feet of stormwater
pipe with associated inlets. There are two houses flooding on the north side of Crest Drive due to an
undersized system and the existing piping is deteriorating and removing material from under the street
causing a potential for sink holes.
Councilperson Smith moved and Councilman Penfold seconded to recommend approval of the
project from the City Council, motion passed.
2. Potential Sidewalk Ordinance Changes(Janice McMillan)
• Mr. Sullivan explained this is a recommendation of sidewalk ordinance changes. Staff feels the
ordinance is too loose. To obtain a variance would be difficult but could be done under certain
circumstances.
Minutes/Jefferson City Public works and Planning Committee 2
August 23,2007
• Ms. McMillan explained the sidewalk provisions are currently in three Chapter's (32, 33 and 35) of
the City Code and should only be located in Chapter 32 to avoid confusion.
There was discussion among Committee members and staff regarding the proposed changes. The
following suggestions were given.
32-103.13.1. "near future"—should be more specific
32-103.D.2"Terrain"—needs defined
32-103.D.4. "Connectivity" — should be explained Oust because it does not connect to another
sidewalk does not mean there is no connectivity.)
32.103 E.2. "adjusted periodically"—should be adjusted annually per CPI.
32-103.H.2. "'VARIANCE under(1)or(2)"should be"VARIANCE under(3) or(4)
32-103.H.3. "top.conditions" should be topographical conditions
Committee members requested staff to make the above changes and bring this item to the next
Committee meeting for discussion.
3. Landfill Gas Pipeline Permissive Use of Right-of-way requested by Ameresco (Matt
Morasch)
'Mr. Morasch gave a presentation on the request. He explained staff originally was not supportive of
the pipeline being in the roadway, however, since the memo staff has spoken with the engineer for the
project and are now agreeable to the pipeline in the right-of-way with the following:
Participate in Missouri One Call—Utility Locates
• Above ground markers
• Subject to relocation at City's request
Resolve property ownership rights with the City's Legal Department on the Alpla Parcel
• There was discussion among Committee members, staff and the project engineer regarding the
company paying a fee for use of the right-of-way, alternate routes being considered and this project being a
"green" project for the environment.
Councilperson Smith moved and Councilman Penfold seconded to forward the request for
permissive use of right-of-way to the City Council subject to renumeration to the City put into a development
agreement between the City and Ameresco.
4. Sidewalk Replacement Program requested by Councilman Jim Penfold (Matt Morasch)
Chairman Klindt requested this item be placed on the September Committee agenda.
5. Milling and Overlay and Trash Service(Matt Moresch/Charles Lansford)
Mr. Morasch explained this issue is to make the Committee aware of a street maintenance issue
concerning trash trucks and funding shortfalls.
Mr. Lansford stated many citizens are using the blue trash carts and since Allied Waste has changed
their practice of workers hopping off the trucks and tossing bags of trash into the hopper to using the
mechanical arms on the truck,which is close to curb where asphalt is weaker, it is deteriorating the streets.
The sticker developed by the City and trash company will tell residents where and how to place their
waste containers to help with the problem, however this will not solve the problem.
Councilperson Smith left at this Ume(9:00 a.m.).
6. Upper Wears Creek Detention Basin Study(Matt Morasch)
• Mr. Morasch explained based on information from the Bums and McDonnell Stormwater Master Plan
Study and more recently a study of the effectiveness of constructing detention basins in the upper Wears
Minutes/Jefferson City Public Works and Planning Committee 3
August 23,2007
Creek watershed, City staff recommends that the most effective way to control flooding in the lower reaches
• of Wears Creek is to pursue regional detention basins and levees in the lower reaches of Wears Creek as
shown in the City's Stormwater Master Plan.
Ms. McMillan stated the City still allows development in the floodplain and many cities do not allow
building in the floodplain.
4. Other Business
There was no other business.
S. Adjournment
The meeting ended at 9:35 a.m..
Respectfully Submitted,
Brenda Wunderlich
Administrative Assistant
•
•
EXCERPT OF APPROVED MINUTES
• JEFFERSON CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
September 13, 2007
5:15 P.M.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT ATTENDANCE RECORD
Bob George 1 of 4
Rhonda Hoskins 4 of 4
David Nunn 4 of 4
Ralph Robinett, Vice Chairman 3 of 4
Jack Deeken, Alternate 3 of 4
Chris Jordan, Alternate 4 of 4
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT
Mike Berendzen, Chair 3 of 4
Randy Bickel 2 of 4
Adam Gresham 3 of 4
David Hagan 1 of 4
John Lake 1 of 4
Chris Yarnell, Alternate 2 of 4
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS
Dan Klindt, City Council Liaison 4 of 4
STAFF PRESENT
Janice McMillan, Deputy Director of Planning &Transportation Services
Eric Barron, Senior Planner
• Drew Hilpert, Associate City Counselor
David Bange, Engineering Division Director
Shane Wade, Civil Engineer II
Anne Stratman, Administrative Assistant
Discussion of proposed revisions to Jefferson City sidewalk requirements.
Staff distributed a revised draft of potential sidewalk ordinance changes to Chapters 32, 33, and
35 pertaining to sidewalk ordinances.
Ms. McMillan clarified that the Public Works and Planning Committee discussed proposed
ordinance changes at their August 23, 2007 meeting and will again review and discuss potential
changes at their meeting.scheduled on September 23, 2007. In 1999 the requirement for sidewalks
in new subdivisions was reinstated. Currently the City requires sidewalks in new subdivisions and in
association with construction of new buildings, new parking lots and new building additions. With the
enactment of provisions that require sidewalks in existing areas there has been discussion of whether
there should be a variance or waiver to that requirement in special circumstances. The sidewalk
ordinance changes, as proposed, would allow a waiver to be granted, subject to strict standards, by
the Director of Community Development.
Mr. Klindt stated that he met with the Home Builders Association and they support the proposed
ordinance changes. He stated that they also support one person making the decisions rather than
the full Council. Mr. Klindt stated that they support the sidewalk waiver fee of$3.00 per square foot
rather than $6.00 per square foot and feel that they would be penalized paying twice as much.
Mr. Deeken supported the idea of having just the one person making decisions.
Mr. Jordan questioned whether there would be an appeal process and who would be the deciding
body.
Excerpt of Approved Minutes/Jefferson City Planning &Zoning Commission Page 2
September 13, 2007
• Ms. McMillan explained that a provision to appeal the Director's decision will be discussed and
that those appeals will most likely be heard by the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Jordan inquired whether a waiver stays with the life of the new construction even when, for
example, five years later an addition or an additional parking lot is constructed, must the developer go
through the process again. He suggested including wording that addresses this issue in the
proposed ordinance.
Ms. McMillan explained that a developer would have to go through the process again, because
after five years the conditions of the waiver are subject to change.
Mr. Jordan stated that a lot of the time with new construction or additions the outside work is the
last thing that is constructed. A developer may ask for a waiver or alternative in lieu of constructing
the sidewalk prior to occupancy. He inquired whether there would be a way to obtain an occupancy
permit so that the building can be occupied while these issues are being resolved.
Ms. McMillan stated that the Building Regulations Division can issue a temporary certificate of
occupancy and issue a final certificate when the work is complete.
Mr. George inquired whether the ordinance changes apply to existing subdivisions even though
some do not have curb and gutter.
Ms. McMillan explained that this waiver provision would be applicable where there are no
sidewalks or where the subdivision was platted before the sidewalk requirement. She explained that
infill lots could be scattered throughout a subdivision and would be required to build sidewalks or
petition for a waiver, however single family and duplex lots are exempt from this requirement.
Mr. George inquired whether an individual property owner would be required to pay for the
sidewalk.
Ms. McMillan explained that it has been discussed to include a provision that still allows the city to
sponsor a neighborhood improvement project, installing sidewalks and then billing the property
owner.
Mr. Nunn stated that the city seems to lack some kind of a plan, like the greenway plan, where it
spells out what the city intends to do even though there are no plans for extension in the immediate
future. He stated that there have been arguments about there being no future plans to extend
sidewalks, so why should they be the one to start it.
Ms. McMillan explained that there have been discussions of developing plans for pedestrian
.facilities. She explained that the Capital Area MPO is required by federal mandate to incorporate
plans for pedestrian facilities into the Long Range Transportation Plan.
Mr. Nunn inquired whether there is a way that sidewalks can be included stage by stage into the
capital improvements project program, similar to the street overlay program.
Ms. McMillan explained that funds are limited however, currently, street improvement projects
have included sidewalks. For example there is a project on Fairgrounds Road that is including
sidewalks.
• Mr. Hilpert stated that the rationale of requesting a waiver for a sidewalk that does not go
anywhere would not apply under this ordinance.
Excerpt of Approved Minutes/Jefferson City Planning &.Zoning Commission Page 3
• September 13, 2007
Mr. Nunn inquired whether a person can demonstrate that the terrain or geographic features
make the construction of sidewalks unreasonable. He also asked weather there will be provisions
against individuals arguing that the terrain is too rocky or hilly.
Mr. Nunn stated that those requirements are reasonable, but reiterates that people will say that
they can't put this sidewalk here because there is too much rock, when in fact it may be a little more
expensive, but is entirely possible.
Ms. McMillan explained that there are situations where streets need to be brought up to urban
standards, (for example Cedar Hill), prior to the installation of sidewalks, especially where there are
no curb and gutters.
Mr. Jordan posed a situation where a property owner or developer offered to pay for adding onto
a sidewalk, and in return the city would install the developer's or property owner's portion when it is
feasible to do so. He also inquired whether a property owner or developer is required to install a
sidewalk when new construction is being built between two existing homes with no sidewalks or could
that property owner or developer put money into a sidewalk fund in lieu of construction.
Mr. George stated that the fee in lieu of construction may need to be changed because the cost of
materials may increase.
Mr. Jordan inquired whether future increases could be tied back to current construction costs.
Ms. McMillan explained that there have been discussions about tying future increases to
Consumer Price Index, so that you would not have to come back and change the ordinance on a
regular basis.
Mr. Hilpert stated that any increases in the fee in lieu of construction could possibly be done
administratively.