Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 03-08-2017 CITY Of CAPE GIRARDEAU PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 8, 2017 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrand, Larry Dowdy, Jeff Glenn, Kevin Greaser, Patrick Koetting, Scott McClanahan, Bruce Skinner, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch Absent: None Staff Present: Carol Peters, Ryan Shrimplin Call to Order: Chairman Bertrand called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the February 8, 2017 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Skinner. REZONINGS SPECIAL USE PERMITS, AND EXCEPTIONS � 1. A public hearing was held on the request of R. S. Real Estate Investments, LLC to rezone property at 4161 Hopper Road from the R-1 (Single-Family Suburban Residential) district to the R-4 (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) district. Mr. Chris Koehler, engineer with Koehler Engineering and Land Surveying, represented the applicant. Mr. Koehler explained that the applicant would like to rezone the property to construct five (5) four-unit townhouse buildings on a short cul-de-sac street on the five (5) acre property located at the southwest corner of Hopper Road and I-55. Mr. Koehler stated he met with MoDOT representatives regarding a proposed street entrance on Hopper Road, which would be located just west of the overpass bridge crossing I-55. The MoDOT representatives indicated the proposed entrance was acceptable without any restrictions. The proposed townhouses range from 1,400 to 1,750 square feet with double car garages. Mr. Koehler continued by explaining that the City's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Infrastructure Map shows the property as high density residential. He stated a single-family development would be hard to market due to the road noise from the close proximity to the interstate as well as the topography of the property. The proposed development would connect to an existing sanitary sewer main serving the nearby Twin Lakes subdivision. The Twin Lakes system has a lift station, which Mr. Koehler believes is sufficient to handle the additional development. If, however, it is determined that an upgrade is needed, the applicant would be willing to pay for it. Chairman Bertrand opened the public hearing and noting the large number of people in the audience, he requested that those in opposition allow a small number of representatives to speak on their behalf. He also noted that City staff received six (6) emails from citizens in opposition to the rezoning request. Mr. Gordon Glaus, 61 North Lake Drive, stated the character and nature of the existing Twin Lakes neighborhood is different than what is being � proposed. Rezoning the property from R-1 to R-4 would substantially increase traffic. He felt that an entrance to the development near the bridge would cause safety concerns with the increase in traffic coming over the narrow bridge. Mr. Michael Maguire, 4561 Hopper City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 8, 2017 � Page 2 of 6 � Road, stated the residents have already been inconvenienced by the Veterans Memorial Drive project and if the developer could do what he wanted with the property as R-1, why change it. Mr. Koehler explained that due to the topography of the property, a single-family development is not feasible. He noted that the density of the proposed development — 4 units per 1 acre — is equal to the maximum density under the current R-1 zoning. Mr. Maguire stated he also sees this as an added safety risk with more increased traffic. Mr. Koehler stated the street in the proposed development would not connect to the streets in Twin Lakes. Mr. John Price, 211 South Lake Drive, asked for a definition of the R-4 district. In response, Mr. Shrimplin read aloud the purpose statement in the R-4 district section of the Zoning Code: "The R-4 district provides for multifamily dwellings and other residential uses with a maximum density of eighteen (18) units per one (1) acre. Single-family and two- family (duplex) dwetlings are permitted in order to accommodate existing R-4 zoned lots that either contain such uses or are not large enough to be developed for multifamily dwellings. It is not intended for new single-family or two-family subdivisions, which are prohibited." Mr. Price also voiced concerns about potential decreased property values and tax issues. Mr. Koehler reiterated the intent is not to construct eighteen (18) units per acre and indicated the applicant would be willing to accept conditions limiting the density to what is proposed. Mr. Shrimplin explained that by faw, the City cannot impose conditions on approval of a rezoning request unless it is for a Planned Development. Seeing no other appearances to speak, Chairman Bertrand closed the public hearing. The Commission discussed the Future Land Use and Infrastructure Map, noting that it was prepared over a decade ago. Mr. McClanahan clarified that the map is a guide, and its �,,,,,� recommendations should be considered in conjunction with other factors, including existing land uses and comments from the public hearing. Mr. Dowdy pointed out that the surrounding properties are zoned R-1 except for the property to the north, which is outside the city limits. Mr. Shrimplin stated the staff report did not make a recommendation on the rezoning request because the applicant was asked to submit a report on the Twin Lakes lift station, which has not been received. A motion was made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the request of R. S. Real Estate Investments, LLC to rezone property at 4161 Hopper Road from the R-1 (Single-Family Suburban Residential) district to the R-4 (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) district. The motion failed with a roll call vote of 1 in favor, 8 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Greaser, Nay: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Koetting, McClanahan, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) 2. A public hearing was held on the proposed zoning of property at 484 Limbaugh Lane upon annexation into the Cape Girardeau city limits. Mr. Shrimplin explained that the City received an annexation petition and agreement from Thomas and Barbara Fitzgerald for their property at 484 Limbaugh Lane. The property is contiguous to the city limits and is eligible for annexation at this time. As part of the annexation process, the Planning and Zoning Commission is to make a recommendation on the proposed zoning of the property, to be effective upon annexation. The staff report recommended the R-1 (Single-Family Suburban Residential) zoning district. Chairman Bertrand opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Mr. Koetting and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to recommend the property at 484 Limbaugh Lane be zoned to the R-1 (Single-Family Suburban Residential) district upon annexation. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: � Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Greaser, Koetting, McClanahan, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � March 8, 2017 Page 3 of 6 3. A public hearing was heid on the request of Lucas Haley for an exception from Development Code Section 25-604, fence location, type and height, at 3041 Keystone Drive. Mr. Lucas Haley, applicant, represented the property owners as their attorney. Mr. Haley explained that in June, 2014, his clients hired a contractor to install an eight (8) foot high privacy fence on their property at 3041 Keystone Drive. The contractor applied for and received a permit from the City for the fence prior to installation. The owners have since moved to Colorado. Recently, one of the neighbors contacted the City and asked if the fence complies with the maximum fence height in the code. Staff inspected the fence and found it to be in excess of the maximum height of six (6) feet. Mr. Haley continued by stating the fence is comprised of individual bamboo stalks affixed together in a frame. In order to reduce the height of the fence, each stalk would need to be cut individually, which is not feasible. He stated the fence has been in place for over two (2) years, and no concerns have been raised until now. The fence serves as a sound barrier from traffic on nearby Mt. Auburn Road and provides privacy for the backyard pool. He added that the City issued the permit without any height restrictions specified. Mr. Greaser asked if the fence was inspected by City staff at the time it was installed. Mr. Shrimplin stated the City has no records of an inspection being requested or conducted for the fence. 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. � Findin : The applicant has not proposed a substantial equivalent meeting the above description; instead, he asserts that the permit was issued for the fence as constructed. The permit and application, both attached, contain no information on the fence height. The permit contains a ce�tification above the line signed by the Contractor or Authorized Agent, which states (emphasis added): "I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of Laws and Ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state/local law regulating construction or the performance of construction." By signing this certification, the Contractor or Authorized Agent acknowledged that he was required to follow the Development Code in constructing the fence. Since the permit and application did not specify the fence height, he was obligated to verify the maximum fence height for each yard per the code and construct the fence in compliance with the code. The exception process solely addresses the issue of whether or not there is a substantial equivalent. The fact that the permit was issued without height information and that the contractor failed to construct the fence in compliance with the Development Code is not a basis for approving the exception. Criterion #2: Approval of the exception request is consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findinq: The request is not consistent with the general spirit and intent of the � Development Code due to lack of a substantial equivalent. Based on the above findings, staff recommended denial of the exception request. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 8, 2017 "'' Page 4 of 6 �„� Chairman Bertrand opened the public hearing. Dr. Patrick Ruopp, 3040 Keystone Drive, spoke in opposition to the request. He presented photos of the fence to the Commission and stated the fence is nine (9) feet high in some locations. He also presented the Commission with a petition signed by thirty-three (33) property owners in opposition to the fence. He informed the Commission that not only is the fence in violation of the City ordinance, but it is also in violation of the subdivision covenants, which state nothing can be built or erected within fifteen (15) feet of the property line and no fences are allowed in the side yards. He added that the fence has not been maintained and it detracts from the natural beauty of the neighborhood. He also indicated that he offered to tear down the fence and plant trees in its place, all at his own expense, but the property owners declined the offer. Mr. Haley responded by stating the covenants are a separate issue that would need to be voted on by the homeowners association. He also noted that this was not the only fence in the neighborhood. Seeing no other appearances to speak, Chairman Bertrand closed the public hearing. Mr. Dowdy recused himself from the vote for personal reasons. A motion was made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the request of Lucas Haley for an exception from the Development Code to allow the existing fence, which exceeds the maximum fence height, in the front, rear and side yards, at 3041 Keystone Drive. The motion failed with a roll call vote of 0 in favor, 8 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. (Nay: Bertrand, Glenn, Greaser, Koetting, McClanahan, Skinner, Spoo/er, Welch; Abstain: Dowdy) 4. A public hearing was held on the request of Midwest Light & Sign for an exception from �,,� Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 130 Siemers Drive. Mr. Jason Buxton, representing the applicant, explained that the property is being developed for a new Panda Express restaurant. The Panda Express sign package specifies wall signs on all four building elevations. The south and east elevations do not have street frontage. Midwest Light & Sign has applied for an exception in order to allow the proposed wall signs on these elevations. He added that Panda Express is willing to transfer a portion of its allowable wall sign area from the other elevations as a substantial equivalent. A staff report was submitted to the Commission, containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: As part of the exception request, a "substantial equivalenY' 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 above code section, the subject building is permitted wall signage on two elevations that have street frontage (north and west). In order to display wall signage on the south and east elevations, the applicant is proposing to transfer a portion of the permitted wall sign area from the north and west e�evations. 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. 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. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � March 8, 2017 Page 5 of 6 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 Bertrand opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Greaser to approve the request of Midwest Light & Sign for an exception from the Development Code to allow wall signs on the south and east building elevations, with no street frontage, at 130 Siemers Drive, subject to the condition that 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. The motion passed with a roll call vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Greaser, Koetting, McClanahan, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) SUBDIVISION PLATS 5. The record plat of Heritage Hills Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Michael Keillor, 3317 Kage Road, applicant, explained that he owns an eight (8) acre lot at the northeast corner of Hopper Road and Kage Road. The lot contains a single-family dwelling. He would like to construct a second single-family dwelling on the property. The lot is zoned � R-1 (Single-Family Suburban Residential), which only allows one (1) single-family dwelling per lot. The plat subdivides the eight (8) acre lot into two (2) lots. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Skinner and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the Heritage Hills Subdivision record plat. The motion passed with a roll call vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Greaser, Koetting, McClanahan, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) 6. The record plat of Broadway Development was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. James Randol, Bowen Engineering & Surveying, represented the applicant. The plat reconfigures several lots into two (2) lots along the south side of Broadway between West End Boulevard and Park Avenue. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Koetting to recommend approval of the Broadway Development record plat. The motion passed with a roll call vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Greaser, Koetting, McClanahan, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION Commission Communication Mr. McClanahan stated he was a member of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee that worked with the consultant, City staff, and the public in the development of the current comprehensive plan, adopted in 2007. He explained that when the Committee worked on the Future Land Use and Infrastructure Map, they did not feel that single-family residential was the � highest and best use for properties adjacent to the interstate. Mr. Shrimplin stated the map will � be replaced as part of the comprehensive plan update. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 8, 2017 �� Page 6 of 6 �,,,,� Staff Communication Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that the selection team will be interviewing three (3) consultants for the comprehensive plan update. Adiournment Upon motion made by Mr. Koetting and seconded by Mr. McClanahan, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully sub � ted, � Bruce Skinner Secretary � �