Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 08-10-2016 CITY of CAPE GIRQRDEAU PL.ANh11NG & ZONING COMMISSION � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 10, 2016 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrand, Larry Dowdy, Bruce Skinner, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch Absent: Jeff Glenn, William Hinckley, Patrick Koetting, Scott McClanahan 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 July 13, 2016 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Welch. REZONINGS, SPECIAL USE PERMITS, AND EXCEPTIONS � 1. A public hearing was held on the request R. Daniel Bieser for an exception from Development Code Section 25-604, fence location, type and height, at 2216 Abbey Road. Dr. R. Daniel Bieser, applicant, stated he installed a six (6) foot tall fence along his side lot line to screen the view of his neighbor's yard. The fence extends into the front yard by approximately two (2) feet. The Development Code limits fences in the front yard to a height of three (3) feet with a minimum fifty (50) percent open surface. The exception request is to allow the existing fence in the front yard to remain, and to extend the fence an additional ten (10) to twelve (12) feet at a height of four (4) feet. The fence contains horizontal boards with gaps between them to allow some degree of visibility. 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: The applicant installed a 6 foot high fence along the south line of his property in order to screen the adjacent property from his view. A majority of the fence is in the rear and side yards. There is, however, a short section that extends into the front yard. The applicant is requesting an exception to allow this section of the 6 foot high fence to remain, and to extend the fence further into the front yard at a height of 4 feet. The purpose of the requirement is to prevent tall, solid fences in the front yard of � residential properties for aesthetic and driving visibility reasons. The applicant has indicated the reason for the request is to allow for proper screening of the adjacent property. The proposed fence surface consists of several horizontal boards with gaps befinreen them. Although the gaps do not comprise 50% of the surface, they are sufficient to maintain a partially open appearance. Staff also noted that the right- City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016 Page 2 of 5 � of-way along the property is wide relative to the street width. Since the fence will extend no further than the right-of-way line, it will not interfere with driving visibility. The location and partially open surface of the fence constitute a "substantial equivalenY'. Criterion #2: Approval of the exception request is consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findinq: The "substantial equivalenY' as proposed will ensure fairness among property owners and tenants, making 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 Bertrand opened the public hearing. Mr. Wayne Mattes, 2137 Abbey Road, spoke in opposition to the request on behalf of his daughter, Rebecca White, who lives at 2322 Earleen Drive, adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Mattes requested the existing fence be brought into compliance and the exception request be denied. He explained that although the City Code allows a fence in the rear and side yards to be six (6) feet tall, their subdivision covenants only allow a five (5) foot tall fence. In addition, the existing fence is more than six (6) feet in height when measured on the side facing his daughter's property. Mr. Shrimplin stated the City Code does not specify on which side of the fence the height measurement should be taken. As such, staff has made it a policy to take the measurement on the property owner's side of the fence. Mr. Mattes stated Dr. Bieser did not request � permission from his daughter to install the fence, and that the property should have been properly surveyed first. Chairman Bertrand reminded Mr. Mattes that the only issue the Commission is deciding tonight is whether or not to approve the exception request. Mr. Skinner asked if the existing fence is on the property line. Dr. Bieser responded by stating the fence contractor installed the fence up to the property line, and that the property was surveyed. Seeing no other appearances to speak, Chairman Bertrand closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Skinner to approve the request of R. Daniel Bieser for an exception from the Development Code to allow an existing fence in the front yard of 2216 Abbey Road to remain at a height of six (6) feet, and to extend the fence an additional ten (10) to twelve (12) feet at a height of four (4) feet, with a twenty (20) percent open surface. The motion passed with a vote of 5 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) 2. A public hearing was held on the request of Canedy Sign & Graphics for an exception from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 823 South Kingshighway. Mr. Jerry Nunnally, Canedy Sign 8� Graphics, applicant, explained that the exception request is to allow a wall sign on the north side of the building, which does not face a street. The proposed sign is six (6) feet by sixteen (16) feet and is not internally illuminated. The sign is to be installed above an overhead door. A staff report was submitted to the Commission, containing the following findings of fact: � City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016 � Page 3 of 5 Criterion #1: As part of the exception request, a "substantial equivalent" is proposed. "Substantial equivalenY' 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 which have street frontage (east and west). In order to display wall signage on the north elevation, the applicant would need to transfer a portion of the permitted wall sign area from the east and west 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. Findinq: The "substantial equivalent" as proposed by staff 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 condition: 1. The aggregate sign area of all wall signs for the building shall not exceed the � maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. Chairman Bertrand 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. Dowdy to approve the request of Canedy Sign & Graphics for an exception from the Development Code to allow a wall sign on the north building elevation, with no street frontage, at 823 South Kingshighway, 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 Development Code. The motion passed with a vote of 5 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) SUBDIVISION PLATS 3. The revised record plat of Cornelius Circle Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering & Land Surveying, representing the applicant, explained that the Commission previously recommended approval of the plat, and since that time, the developer has revised some of the townhouse floor plans, resulting in changes to the internal lot lines. Mr. Shrimplin explained that the changes are considered a revision rather than an amendment because the original plat had not been presented to the City Council for approval; it was being held pending completion of the public improvements or execution of an escrow agreement. The staff report recommended approval of the revised record plat as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Welch to recommend approval of the revised Cornelius Circle Subdivision record plat. The motion passed with a vote of 5 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, � Skinner, Spoo/er, Welch) City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 10, 2016 Page 4 of 5 � 4. The amended preliminary plat of Redhawk Commons was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Brandon Williams, developer and applicant, explained that the approved preliminary plat is being amended to reflect a change from twenty-five (25) apartment buildings with six (6) units each to twenty (20) apartment buildings with eight (8) units each, plus an additional two (2) units — either two (2) single-family residences or a duplex —to bring the unit total up to the maximum allowed by the zoning. The staff report recommended approval of the amended preliminary plat as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the Redhawk Commons amended preliminary plat. The motion passed with a vote of 5 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) 5. The preliminary plat of Collins Mill Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering & Land Surveying, representing the applicant, stated the plat is for a forty-two (42) lot single-family residential subdivision. Two (2) phases are proposed, with the first phase being the twelve (12) lots fronting on Old Hopper Road. A single access point on Old Hopper Road will serve the remaining thirty (30) lots, as approved by the Board of Appeals. The staff report recommended approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the corrections listed in the staff review letter. A motion was made by Mr. Skinner and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the Collins Mill Subdivision preliminary plat, subject to the corrections listed in the staff review letter. The motion passed with a vote of 5 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Skinner, Spooler, Welch) OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION � 6. Revised Amendment to Development Code Article VII, Retaininq Walls, and Article VIII, Landscaping and Bufferyards Mr. Shrimplin presented revisions to the proposed amendment to Articles VII and VIII of the Development Code. He stated Article VII, Retaining Walls, was revised to apply to structural repairs instead of all repairs. Additionally, the requirement for observation by a professional engineer was revised such that it does not apply to structural repairs. Article VIII, Landscaping and Bufferyards, was revised to include more general language regarding landscaping near an intersection. Staff had previously proposed a requirement that landscaping not exceed two and one-half (2.5) feet within thirty (30) feet of an intersection, but the Commission questioned how that would be enforced. The requirement was changed to read: "Landscaping shall not be allowed to obstruct the view of motorists using any street, driveway, parking aisle, or approach to any street intersection so as to constitute a traffic hazard or condition dangerous to the public safety." The Commission agreed that the revisions addressed their concerns. A motion was made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Welch to recommend approvat of the amendment to Development Code Articles VII and VIII. The motion passed by a unanimous vote. 7. Commission/Staff Communication Mr. Shrimplin reminded the Commission that the City Code states: "If any board or commission member misses three (3) consecutive meetings of the board or commission, or four (4) meetings in any finrelve (12) continuous months, their position on such board or �,,,;;� commission shall automatically be deemed vacant and a replacement shall be named as City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � August 10, 2016 Page 5 of 5 provided." He stated that with tonighYs absence, Mr. Hinckley has now missed four (4) meetings in twelve (12) months, so his position will be deemed vacant. The Commission expressed support for reappointing Mr. Hinckley if he is interested in continuing his service on the Commission and is able to maintain attendance. Mr. Shrimplin will contact Mr. Hinckley to see if he would like to be reappointed and forward that information to the City Council. Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that the City will be executing a contract with ARCTURIS for an update to the Downtown Strategic Plan. In addition, staff is working on a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for an update to the Comprehensive Plan. Adjournment Upon motion made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Bertrand, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, __��,�GL.. Doug Spooler Secretary � �