Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning Commission Minutes 05-09-2018 CITY Of CAPE GIRARDEAU PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION � PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 9, 2018 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrand, Jeff Glenn, Kevin Greaser, Scott McClanahan, Bruce Skinner, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch Absent: Larry Dowdy, Patrick Koetting Staff Present: Carol Peters, Ryan Shrimplin Call to Order Chairman Glenn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the April 11, 2018 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Bertrand. � REZONINGS, SPECIAL USE PERMITS, AND EXCEPTIONS 1. A public hearing was held on the request of Midamerica Hotels Corporation for an exception from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 495 South Mt. Auburn Road. Mr. Dan Drury, Midamerica Hotels Corporation, applicant, explained that the existing Burger King building on the site will be demolished and rebuilt. The proposed building has signage on the west elevation, which does not face a street and therefore is not allowed wall signage per the code. The current building also has signage on the west elevation, but the sign area is less than what is proposed for the new building. He stated that the total area of all wall signage proposed for the new building is less than the maximum area allowed per the code. A staff report was submitted to the Commission, containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: As part of the exception request, a "substantial equivalent" is proposed. "Substantial equivalent" means an alternate design, method or feature that accomplishes the same purpose as the applicable Development Code requirement. Findinq: Per the code requirement, the subject building is permitted wall signage on two elevations that have street frontage (south and east). In order to display wall signage on the west elevation, the applicant is proposing to transfer a portion of the permitted wall sign area from the other elevations. This qualifies as a "substantial equivalent" because the applicant receives the same amount of wall sign area, but gets to distribute it differently. Criterion #2: Approval of the exception request is consistent with the general spirit and � intent of the Development Code. Findin : The "substantial equivalenY' proposed by the applicant ensures fairness among property owners and tenants, which makes approval of the exception request consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 9, 2018 Page 2 of 4 � Based on the above findings, staff recommended approval of the exception request, with the following condition: 1. The aggregate sign area of all wall signs for the building shall not exceed the maximum permitted wall sign area per the City's sign regulations. Chairman Glenn opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Skinner to approve the request of Midamerica Hotels Corporation for an exception from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 495 South Mt. Auburn Road, subject to the condition listed in the staff report. The motion passed with a roll call vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, G/enn, Greaser, McClanahan, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) 2. A public hearing was held on the request of Springfield Sign for an exception from Development Code Section 25-506(e)(1), projecting signs, at 400 Broadway. Mr. Jeff Maurer, H & H Center Property, LLC, property owner, explained that the property is being redeveloped for a Courtyard by Marriott hotel. The hotel owner wishes to display both freestanding and projecting signage on the property, but the code only allows projecting signage in lieu of freestanding signage. A staff report was submitted to the Commission, containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: As part of the exception request, a "substantial equivalent" is proposed. "Substantial equivalent" means an alternate design, method or feature that accomplishes � the same purpose as the applicable Development Code requirement. Findinq: The subject property is a corner lot located in downtown. Per the code, two (2) freestanding signs are allowed (one per street frontage). The applicant is proposing a monument-style freestanding sign on each street frontage. Both signs are less than the maximum freestanding sign area allowed by the code. In order to display a projecting sign on one (1) of the building corners, the applicant is proposing to transfer a portion of the permitted sign area from the freestanding signs. This qualifies as a "substantial equivalent" because the applicant receives the same amount of sign area, but gets to distribute it differently. Criterion #2: Approval of the exception request is consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findinq: The "substantial equivalent" proposed by the applicant ensures fairness among property owners and tenants, which makes approval of the exception request consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, staff recommended approval of the exception request, with the following conditions: 1. The aggregate sign area of the projecting sign and the freestanding signs shall not exceed the maximum permitted freestanding sign area per the City's sign regulations. � 2. The projecting sign shall be subject to all other applicable provisions of the City's sign regulations. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � May 9, 2018 Page 3 of 4 Chairman Glenn opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Spooler to approve the request of Springfield Sign for an exception from Development Code Section 25-506(e)(1), projecting signs, at 400 Broadway, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. The motion passed with a roll call vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, G/enn, Greaser, McC/anahan, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) 3. A public hearing was held on the request of Adam and Julia Todd for an exception from Development Code Section 25-604, fence height and surface requirements, at 5 Starwood Drive. Mr. Adam Todd, applicant, explained that he and his wife would like to install a five (5) foot high decorative metal fence in what they consider to be their back yard but the code considers to be the front yard. A staff report was submitted to the Commission, containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: As part of the exception request, a "substantial equivalent" is proposed. "Substantial equivalent" means an alternate design, method or feature that accomplishes the same purpose as the applicable Development Code requirement. Findinq: The subject property is somewhat unusual in that it has a long, s-shaped street frontage that wraps around the side of the house, resulting in a large front yard as defined by the Zoning Code. The portion of the front yard along the s-curve, however, looks and functions like a side yard due to the position of the house. The � applicant is proposing to install a 5 foot high decorative metal fence, starting at the front corner of the house and running behind the trees along the s-curve and then to the rear property line, where it will continue along this line and enclose the rear yard. Photos of the proposed fence and location are included with the application. The proposed fence is more than 50% open. The purpose of the height and surface regulations in the Development Code is to prevent tall, solid fences along streets in residential areas for aesthetic and safety purposes. The open and decorative nature of the fence qualifies as a substantial equivalent. Criterion #2: Approval of the exception request is consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findinq: The substantial equivalent proposed by the applicant ensures fairness among property owners and tenants, which makes approval of the exception request consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, staff recommended approval of the exception request. Chairman Glenn opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. He then stated that he was contacted by Mrs. Carol Sparkman, 2 Starwood Drive, who informed him that she is in favor of the request. A motion was made by Mr. Greaser and seconded by Mr. Welch to approve the request of Adam and Julia Todd for an exception from Development Code Section 25-604, fence height and surface requirements, at 5 Starwood Drive. The motion passed with a roll call vote of 7 in favor, 0 in � opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, G/enn, Greaser, McC/anahan, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 9, 2018 - Page 4 of 4 � SUBDIVISION PLATS 4. The record plat of Robert Davis Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Matt DeJournett, Dowdy and DeJournett Surveying, representing the applicant, explained that the plat reconfigures three (3) lots into two (2) lots at the northeast corner of West Highland Drive and Engram Street. A staff report was submitted to the Commission, which recommended approval of the record plat as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Skinner and seconded by Mr. Welch to recommend approval of the record plat of Robert Davis Subdivision as submitted. The motion passed with a roll call vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, G/enn, Greaser, McClanahan, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION 5. Amendment to Zoninq Code Sec. 30-406, Temporarv Uses Mr. Shrimplin presented a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code (Chapter 30 of the City Code) regarding temporary uses. He explained that the amendment revises the language in Section 30-406, Temporary Uses, to address issues identified by staff. These issues include: restricting outdoor sales of produce and lawn and garden products to thirty (30) days within a twelve (12) month period when such uses typically operate on a seasonal basis lasting up to four (4) months; the omission of carnivals, circuses, mobile zoos, haunted houses, and craft, trade, or exhibition shows from the list of permitted temporary uses; and � the lack of locational restrictions for certain temporary uses, such as the sale of fireworks. The amendment addresses these issues and re-organizes the temporary use categories into a table. A motion was made by Mr. Skinner and seconded by Mr. Bertrand to recommend approval of the amendment to Zoning Code Sec. 30-406, Temporary Uses. The motion passed with a roll call vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Greaser, McClanahan, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) Staff Communication Mr. Shrimplin reported that the open house and public hearing for the draft Cape Vision 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been postponed indefinitely due to the volume of comments and corrections submitted by the Comprehensive Plan Oversight Committee. Adiournment Upon motion made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Bertrand, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully b�itted, ��'C�.�..� "� Kevin Greaser Secretary �