Planning Commission Agenda

Transcription

1 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission Agenda October 24, :00 PM, Council Chambers, Independence City Hall City Code Chapter 14 and the staff reports are entered into the record. III. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING A. Case # UDO Amendment # 30 Donation Bins The City proposes Amendment #30 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) relating to Donation Bins in Section IV. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case # Rezoning East Bundschu Road MC Power Companies Inc. requests a rezoning from R-6, Single Family Residential to I-1, Industrial, for property at E. Bundschu Road. B. Case # UDO Amendment #31 Accessory Uses The City proposes Amendment #31 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) relating to accessory uses on certain properties in residential zoning districts, Section The above case has been withdrawn by City staff. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 10, 2017 VI. ROUNDTABLE VII. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 19

2 City of Independence AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Agenda Title: Case # UDO Amendment # 30 Donation Bins The City proposes Amendment #30 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) relating to Donation Bins in Section Department: Contact Person: REVIEWERS: Department Planning Commission Council Action: Action Approved Council Action: ATTACHMENTS: Description Staff Report Donation Bin Changes Page 2 of 19

3 Community Development Department TO: Planning Commission PREPARED BY: Community Development Department RE: Case # Unified Development Ordinance Amendment #30 - Donations Bins DATE: October 24, 2017 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The City requests the adoption of Amendment #30 to Section of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding Donation Bins. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the adoption of the proposed Amendment #30 to the Unified Development Ordinance. REVIEW In continuing efforts to improve the overall appearance of the City, this amendment is proposed to require all donation bins which are located in commercial and industrial zoned areas be accessory to an active and open business. Currently, donation bins may be located in parking lots of closed businesses. In these situations, there is little to no oversight on the donation bin, and has led to donation bins that are filled to capacity, and overflowing onto the ground around the donation bin. This proposed amendment will assist in the City s effort to improve the overall appearance of the City by providing a level of oversight on these donations bins from open businesses. This amendment also adds a new subsection ( F), which gives guidelines for the removal of a non-compliant donation bin. The Commission asked staff to revisit this section to explore ways that a property owner would have indemnification in cases where they did not want the donation bin on their property in this first place. Staff is now proposing to handle this through the enforcement process in Chapter 4. What this does is sets up a process where a hearing is held, and the hearing officer can extend deadlines for removal of the bin. In cases where the property owner did not allow the bin in the first place, the property owner and City can work together to contact the bin owner and work to have it removed with no costs being incurred by the City or property owner. In the attached exhibit, underline indicates the proposed new text, while strikethrough indicates proposed deleted text. EXHIBITS 1. Proposed amendment Page 3 of 19

4 DONATION BINS A. Donation bins may be kept on property zoned Commercial (O/C) or Industrial (I) when on a parking lot adjacent to the building/tenant space, and on a property, of a business with a valid City business license. However, such bins may also be kept on properties used for religious assembly, institutional or community service uses regardless of the property s zoning or business license status B. Bins are limited to maximum height of seven feet with a maximum area of 25 square feet. Bins that exceed this maximum height or area shall be considered an accessory building and comply with the standards of Section C. Donation bins are prohibited from collecting hazardous materials. All donated items should fit inside the bin. All bins must be kept clean and in good repair D. Sites of one acre or less are limited to two donation bins, sites over one acre up to five bins. Bins shall be grouped together on the property E. Bins must not be located in any drive aisle, required parking or loading space, walkway, or impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic F. Donations bins not in full compliance with the regulations set herein may be deemed rubbish in accordance to Chapter 4 of the City Code. (History: Ordinance No ) Page 4 of 19

5 City of Independence AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Agenda Title: Case # Rezoning East Bundschu Road MC Power Companies Inc. requests a rezoning from R-6, Single Family Residential to I-1, Industrial, for property at E. Bundschu Road. Department: Contact Person: REVIEWERS: Department Planning Commission Council Action: Action Approved Council Action: ATTACHMENTS: Description App Letter from Applicant Owner List Plats Plot Plan Staff Report Page 5 of 19

6 Page 6 of 19

7 Page 7 of 19

8 Page 8 of 19

9 Page 9 of 19

10 Page 10 of 19

11 Page 11 of 19

12 Community Development Department October 24, 2017 TO: Planning Commission PREPARED BY: Community Development RE: Case # Rezoning E. Bundschu Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION MC Power Companies, Inc. requests to rezone the property at E. Bundschu Road from R-6 (Single-Family Residential) to I-1 (Industrial). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of this rezoning request. PROPERTY INFORMATION Owner/Applicant: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Current Use: MC Power Companies, Inc. R-6 (Single-Family Residential) I-1 (Industrial) Cropland Surrounding Zoning and Land Use North: South: East: West: R-A elementary school I-1..undeveloped land I-1..solar farm I-1. cropland Thoroughfare Plan: E. Bundschu Road = arterial BACKGROUND MC Power Companies, Inc. requests to rezone a 7.14 acre tract, located at E. Bundshu Road, from R-6 (Single-Family Residential) to I-1 (Industrial) to construct and operate the second phase of a recently constructed community solar farm located immediately to the east. The tract would be leased from Little Blue Valley Northeast, LLC, but MCP-Independence would own and operate the facility. Having contracted with Independence Power and Light (IPL), MC Power intends to expand the existing three megawatt array to supply an additional 0.7 megawatts of power to IPL s distribution grid. Industrial zoning would also require an exterior yard setback from the E. Bundschu Road right-ofway of 50 feet. Case # Page 1 Page 12 of 19

13 ANALYSIS Public Works and Engineering: Public Works would not require any public improvements to the right-of-way other than that for a driveway apron and culvert for any point of access. Historic Building/Site: This is not a known historic site. Review Criteria: Recommendations and decisions on rezoning applications must be based on consideration of all of the following criteria: 1. Conformance of the requested zoning with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan envisions Agricultural/Rural Residential uses for this tract and for those located to the north, east, and Open Space for those to the west and south; 2. Conformance of the requested zoning with any adopted neighborhood or sub-area plans in which the property is located or abuts There are no adopted neighborhood or sub-area plans for these tracts; 3. The compatibility of the proposed zoning with the zoning and use of nearby property, including any overlay zoning Although R-A (Residential/Agricultural) uses lie north of E. Bundschu Road, the tract lies near industrial zoned properties to the west, south and east; 4. The compatibility of the proposed zoning and allowed uses with the character of the neighborhood The existing solar power array lies adjacent to the east and further to the east lies a mini-storage facility. To the southwest is an active railroad right-of-way; 5. The suitability of the subject property for the uses to which it has been restricted under the existing zoning regulations The property is suitable for agricultural and residential uses; 6. The length of time the subject property has remained vacant as zoned The property has been farmland; 7. The extent to which approving the rezoning will detrimentally affect nearby properties The rezoning would be compatible with surrounding zonings to the west, south and east; 8. The gain, if any, to the public health, safety and welfare due to denial of the application, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the landowner, if any, as a result of denial of the application If the zoning was denied it would have a negative financial effect on the owner, but leave a pleasant view shed from the nearby school. EXHIBITS 1. Applicant s letter 2. Zoning plat/site plan 3. Parcel survey 4. List of surrounding property owners 5. Signed property owner notification affidavit PUBLIC NOTICE Letters mailed to adjoining property owners October 6, 2017 Public notice published in Independence Examiner October 7, 2017 Signs were posted on property Case # Page 2 Page 13 of 19

14 Vicinity Map BundschuRd « R-A R ROAD R I ± Case # Page 3 Page 14 of 19

15 City of Independence AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Agenda Title: Case # UDO Amendment #31 Accessory Uses The City proposes Amendment #31 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) relating to accessory uses on certain properties in residential zoning districts, Section The above case has been withdrawn by City staff. Department: Contact Person: REVIEWERS: Department Planning Commission Council Action: Action Approved Council Action: Page 15 of 19

16 City of Independence AGENDA ITEM COVER SHEET Agenda Title: October 10, 2017 Department: Contact Person: REVIEWERS: Department Planning Commission Council Action: Action Approved Council Action: ATTACHMENTS: Description Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 19

17 MINUTES INDEPENDENCE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION October 10, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT Eric Ashbaugh, Chair Cindy McClain, Vice Chair Virginia Ferguson John Goldesberry Bill Preston MEMBERS ABSENT Travis Boley Tina Read STAFF PRESENT Charlie Dissell Assistant Director Mitch Langford- City Prosecutor A meeting of the Independence City Planning Commission was held at 6:00 p.m., October 10, 2017 in the Independence City Hall Council Chambers (lower level, north entrance), 111 E. Maple Street in Independence, Missouri. The meeting was called to order. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case # UDO Amendment # 29 Tobacco/Convenience Stores The City proposes Amendment #29 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) relating to Tobacco/Convenience Stores in Section Staff Presentation Charlie Dissell reviewed the amendment. Mr. Dissell noted the request is a result of working with the Health Department in researching the effects of underage use. Mr. Dissell explained that this special use category includes tobacco shops and convenience stores that do not sell fuel. Convenience stores with fuel sales are not controlled through the special use permit process. Mr. Dissell noted that while there has been a decrease of tobacco use in the US and Independence, the use of the secondary products, such as e-cigarettes, has increased in underage youth. Mr. Dissell reminded the Commission that the last two special use permits that have been reviewed for tobacco/convenience stores has been for vapor shops. Mr. Dissell noted that out of all the per capita uses in the UDO, tobacco/convenience stores allow the most number of uses. Mr. Dissell added that the 13 existing license for tobacco/convenience stores would be allowed to continue, but a new store would not be allowed in the City until there were under seven. Commission Comments Commissioner Ferguson clarified that the tobacco/convenience stores include electronic cigarettes. Mr. Dissell confirmed it does by definition. Chairman Ashbaugh clarified how convenience stores fit into this. Mr. Dissell explained the special use category includes tobacco stores, which by definition include e-cigarettes, and convenience stores. Convenience stores included are the ones who do not sell fuel. Commissioner McClain asked for confirmation that the definition of tobacco stores includes vapor shops. Mr. Dissell affirmed, and read the definition to the Commission. Chairman Ashbaugh clarified that a convenience store that sells fuel can sell vapor products. Mr. Dissell affirmed. Page 17 of 19

18 Commissioner Goldesberry stated that, if approved, the last type of this use that the Commission would review for a while was the last one they reviewed on 24 Highway. Mr. Dissell noted that the City Council did not approve that request. Chairman Ashbaugh asked for clarification on the intent of this ordinance. Mr. Dissell noted through the research done by the Health Department, the use of the secondary products has increased. Chairman Ashbaugh asked why a Quik Trip could still sell these products but other would be regulated. Mr. Dissell noted that it s mainly because the convenience stores with fuel sales main intent is not to sell tobacco/nicotine products. Chairman Ashbaugh asked if in of the other uses have separation requirements from other like uses. Mr. Dissell did not believe there were any uses that were regulated in that way, but many uses have separation requirements from residential uses, schools, churches and parks. Public Comments There were no public comments. Motion (Case # UDO Amendment # 29 Tobacco/Convenience Stores) Commissioner McClain made a motion to approve the case as presented. Commissioner Ferguson seconded the motion. The motion passed with four affirmative votes. 2. Case # UDO Amendment # 30 Donation Bins The City proposes Amendment #30 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) relating to Donation Bins in Section Staff Presentation Charlie Dissell reviewed the amendment. Mr. Dissell noted the request is part of the continued effort at increasing the overall image of the City. Mr. Dissell explained that a good amount of the complaints that come in regarding donations bins are for bins located in front of vacant and unoccupied store fronts with no oversight. Mr. Dissell noted the proposed amendment would require donation bins to only be located in front of businesses that were open and had a valid business license. Mr. Dissell added this would help by giving an additional layer of oversight on the donation bins. Furthermore, Mr. Dissell added that an additional section is being proposed that would give the City the ability to remove donations bins from property that is found to not be in compliance and asses the costs of removal onto the property owner. Commission Comments Commissioner McClain asked if there was any thought to adding language that would require the business owner to agree to have the donation bin on their property. Mr. Dissell stated it was his assumption that the companies with the donation bins were already asking property owner permission to place the donations bins. Commissioner McClain stated in many cases they do not. Chairman Ashbaugh asked why the proposal would go back and charge the property owner and not the owner of the donation bin. Mr. Dissell explained for many reasons, it is not possible to take an individual company to municipal court, and the City does not have the ability to assess taxes on individual companies. Commissioner Preston noted that if a bin is placed on a property without the property owner s permission, Page 18 of 19

19 the property owner should not have to pay for its removal. Chairman Ashbaugh asked for clarification on who it was more difficult for the City to go after, the donation bin owner or the property owner. Mr. Dissell stated it was the donation bin owner. Chairman Ashbaugh asked if the City could go in and remove every donation bin from a company if just one was in violation as a means to get the attention of the company. Commissioner Preston noted that this amendment has to include some language to where a property owner can complain to the City about a donation bin on their property, and the end result does no harm to the property owner. Mr. Dissell asked the Commission to think about a scenario where both the donation bin company and the property owner don t comply with the code or the City s request to have the bin removed. Commissioner McClain asked if there could be preventive language that gave property owners the right to refuse donation bins on their property. Mr. Dissell agreed that could be added, but in the end with the way this amendment is worded, the property owner would still be responsible for the removal of the bin. Commissioner Preston noted that the removal at the cost of the City should be considered a public service in these situations, and the property owner should not be responsible for the removal of something they did not want in the first place. Commissioner McClain asked if there was a way that the City could fine a company if they place a donation bin on a property without permission. Mr. Dissell noted that the City does not fine, a judge has to set fines, and the City does not have the ability to take a company to municipal court. Chairman Ashbaugh asked if the bins could be permitted as a means to get information on responsible parties for the donation bin. Mr. Dissell noted that would take further research to see how a permit would work. Commissioner Preston noted that this amendment needs additional work before the Commission votes on the amendment. Chairman Ashbaugh asked if this amendment needed to be approved in the near future. Mr. Dissell noted it did not. Commissioner Goldesberry noted that we have to find a way to go after the donation bin owners, not the property owners. Mr. Dissell reiterated that the City has no enforcement mechanism on companies. Mr. Dissell asked that if the Commission does postpone this item for clarification on exactly what they want staff to look at before bringing the item back. Chairman Ashbaugh stated he wants the City to look at permitting these. Commissioner Preston wants to indemnify property owners who essentially have donation bins dumped onto them. Mr. Dissell stated that staff could take this back, and look at adding language to help with the concerns the Commission has about donation bins being placed on property without the property owner s permission. Motion (Case # UDO Amendment # 30 Donation Bins) Commissioner Ashbaugh made a motion to postpone the case as presented for further review, and to bring the case back to the Commission within six months. Commissioner Preston seconded the motion. The motion passed with five affirmative votes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the September 12, 2017 Planning Commission meeting were approved. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Page 19 of 19