Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 04-13-2016 GITY O.f CAPE GIRARD�AU PLANNING & ZONING COMM15514N � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 13, 2016 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrand, Larry Dowdy, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Patrick Koetting, Scott McClanahan, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch Absent: Jeff Glenn 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 March 9, 2016 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Koetting. REZONINGS. SPECIAL USE PERMITS. AND EXCEPTIONS � 1. A public hearing was held on the request of LILMAC, LLC to rezone property on LaSalle Avenue from the C-2 (Highway Commercial) district to the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-family Residential) district. Mr. Chris Koehler, representing the applicant, stated the property is proposed to be subdivided for duplex and multi-family dwellings. Chairman Bertrand opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the request of LILMAC, LLC to rezone property on LaSalle Avenue from the C-2 (Highway Commercial) district to the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-family Residential) district. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Hinckley, Kluge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spoo/er, Welch) 2. A public hearing was held on the request of Rhodes Properties, LC for an exception from Development Code Section 25-205(c)(1), vehicle parking and maneuvering areas, at 2311 Bloomfield Road. Mr. Scott Rhodes, applicant, explained that this same request was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission previously, but work did not commence in time and the variance expired. He stated the construction of a 13,000 square foot office/warehouse building with bay doors in the rear is still planned for the property. He is requesting an exception to allow a gravel surface behind the building for the loading and unloading of very heavy warehouse items. 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 equivalenY' means an alternate design, method or feature that accomplishes � the same purpose as the applicable Development Code requirement. Findinq: The applicant is proposing a gravel vehicular surface behind the building due to the nature of the warehouse items that will be loaded and unloaded, such as City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 2 of 6 t � \,,,1I skid steers and small tractors, which will be moved by an all-terrain forklift. The weight of the equipment and the rotations required by the forklift would damage a conventional paved surface. The Development Code requires a paved vehicular surface in all yards for commercial uses because they are generally associated with higher volumes of on-site vehicular traffic compared to other uses. Over time, vehicular traffic and weather can result in significant dispersal of gravel to the street and adjacent properties, creating maintenance and aesthetic issues. In this particular case, however, the proposed gravel vehicular surface is limited to the area behind the building, which will be several feet below the adjacent property. The proposed building and retaining wall on the site will help to contain the gravel and, for the most part, keep it from being visible off the premises. This 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 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. Based on the above findings, staff recommended approval of the exception request. 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. Spooler �1 to approve the request of Rhodes Properties, LC for an exception to allow a gravel surFace behind the building at 2311 Bloomfield Road. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Hinckley, K/uge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch) 3. A public hearing was held on the request of Rhodes Properties, LC for an exception from Development Code Section 25-102 for driveway width at 2311 Bloomfield Road. Mr. Scott Rhodes, applicant, indicated that this request had also been approved previously. He explained to the Commission that due to the lot frontage, there is not sufficient room to install a separate driveway without needing an exception for driveway spacing. Staff felt it would be better to combine the new driveway with the existing driveway on the adjacent property and support an exception to exceed the maximum driveway width. 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 applicant is proposing to share a driveway with the adjacent development rather than construct a separate driveway, which will result in fewer access points on Bloomfield Road. The proposed 56-foot wide shared driveway is less than the aggregate width of two separate driveways at the maximum permitted width (30 feet x 2 driveways = 60 feet). This qualifies as a "substantial equivalenY'. � City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 13, 2016 � Page 3 of 6 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. Based on the above findings, staff recommended approval of the exception request. 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. Spooler to approve the request of Rhodes Properties, LC for an exception to allow a 56 foot wide shared driveway at 2311 Bloomfield Road. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Hinckley, Kluge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch) 4. A public hearing was held on the request of Kenny Pincksten for an exception from Development Code Section 25-213, emergency vehicle access, for the Riverview Court subdivision on North Main Street. Mr. Chris Koehler, representing the applicant, presented the Commissioners with a revised site plan. The revised plan included a turning radius template overlaid on it, which showed that fire apparatus could turn into the proposed access drive and maneuver in the drive aisle in front of the townhouse driveways, if the drive � aisle was widened to 24 feet. Mr. Shrimplin stated that shortly before the meeting, he received an email from the Fire Marshal citing a section of the Fire Code which requires a 26 foot wide fire lane in front of any building at least three stories or 30 feet in height. Mr. Kenny Pincksten, the applicant, stated he would agree to widening the drive aisle to 26 feet as long as he does not have to widen the access drive. The drive is immediately adjacent to a historic building; if the drive were to be widened in that direction, it could undermine the foundation of the building. The drive cannot be widened in the other direction due to its proximity to a new water meter vault. He indicated the property has an existing 11 foot wide access drive that served two duplexes before they were demolished for the new development. The existing drive is proposed to be replaced by an 18 foot wide drive, which is significantly wider. He pointed out that downtown properties have unique conditions and unless the City allows some flexibility with the code requirements, developers will not want to develop or redevelop downtown. 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 equivalenY' means an alternate design, method or feature that accomplishes the same purpose as the applicable Development Code requirement. Findin : The applicant did not propose a substantial equivalent. The 20 foot minimum access drive width is established by the City's Fire Code, which is referenced in the Development Code. This is the minimum width necessary to ensure proper access for emergency vehicles, especially larger fire apparatus. � Criterion #2: Approval of the exception request is consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 4 of 6 � Findinq: Because the applicant did not propose a substantial equivalent, approval of the exception request is not consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, staff recommended denial of the exception request. However, after the original staff report was issued, the applicant contacted staff to discuss the recommendations of denial for the exception requests. A staff report addendum was presented to the Commission, containing the following findings of fact: The applicant explained there are physical constraints which preclude widening the access drive to meet the 20' minimum width required by the code. Because the code requirement is intended to ensure proper access for emergency vehicles and fire apparatus, staff consulted with the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal to determine if any options exist. After much discussion, the Fire Chief determined the 18 foot access drive width could be approved if the dwelling units are equipped with an approved fire sprinkler system. This would alleviate the need for the Fire Department to use the access drive. Based on the above findings, staff recommended approval of the exception request to allow an 18 foot wide access drive, with the condition that all of the dwelling units in the development shall be equipped with a City-approved fire sprinkler system. Chairman Bertrand opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. In response to a question from the Commission, Mr. Pincksten � indicated that installing a fire sprinkler system would not be financially feasible. Mr. McClanahan asked if widening the drive aisle in front of the townhouse driveways to 26 feet would create a different exception for the percent of site landscaping. Mr. Shrimplin stated staff will make that determination upon review of the revised site plan. Mr. Kluge stated there are County roads that are only 18 feet wide, which must be sufficient for fire apparatus or they would be wider. The Commission discussed the challenges with redeveloping a downtown property and noted that while safety is important, sometimes the code requirements are not the absolute minimum necessary. It was pointed out the Fire Department would not be opening the vehicle doors and lowering the outriggers while on the access drive. That would take place on the drive aisle in front of the townhouses. As such, it made sense to require the drive aisle to be wider, but not the access drive. A motion was made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Kluge to approve the request of Kenny Pincksten for an exception to allow an 18 foot wide access drive for the Riverview Court subdivision on North Main Street, with the condition that the drive aisle in front of the townhouse driveways shall be a minimum of 26 feet in width to accommodate fire apparatus. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Hinckley, Kluge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spoo/er, Welch) 5. A public hearing was held on the request of Kenny Pincksten for an exception from Development Code Section 25-202, parking spaces and aisle design, for the Riverview Court subdivision on North Main Street. Mr. Kenny Pincksten, the applicant, reiterated that he would agree to widening the drive aisle to 26 feet as long as he does not have to widen the access drive. A staff report was submitted to the Commission, containing the following findings of fact: �1 City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � April 13, 2016 Page 5 of 6 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 applicant did not propose a substantial equivalent. The 24 foot minimum drive aisle width for two-way traffic is necessary to ensure vehicles have proper room to back out of the townhouse driveways without conflicting with vehicles in the drive aisle, and to allow clearance for vehicles passing each other. Criterion #2: Approval of the exception request is consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findinq: Because the applicant did not propose a substantial equivalent, approval of the exception request is not consistent with the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, staff recommended denial of the exception request. However, after the original staff report was issued, the applicant contacted staff to discuss the recommendations of denial for the exception requests. A staff report addendum was presented to the Commission, containing the following findings of fact: When staff conducted its review of the exception request for a reduced drive aisle width, the question was raised as to whether or not the gravel filter proposed along � the outer edge of the pavement could be used as a "shoulder" and widened to achieve the 24' minimum width required by the code. It was determined the gravel filter would not be capable of bearing the weight of a vehicle without causing damage to the drain beneath. There may exist, however, an alternative material and design that could sustain the weight of a vehicle. If the applicant proposes such an alternative and shows a 3' wide "shoulder" along each side of the drive aisle, and the staff determines the alternative can be approved, then it would qualify as a "substantial equivalenY' and would be consistent with the general spirit and intent of the code. Based on the above findings, staff recommended approval of the exception request to allow an 18 foot wide drive aisle, with the condition that a 3 foot wide permeable surface capable of supporting the weight of a car, truck, or other vehicle shall be provided adjacent to each side of the drive aisle. The materials and design shall be subject to approval by the City staff. Chairman Bertrand opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. It was noted that because the drive aisle is required to be a minimum width of 26 feet as a condition of approval of Mr. Pincksten's other exception, the Commission cannot approve this exception. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to approve the request of Kenny Pincksten for an exception to allow an 18 foot wide drive aisle for the Riverview Court subdivision on North Main Street. The motion failed with a vote of 0 in favor, 8 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, � Dowdy, Hinckley, Kluge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spoo/er, Welch) City of Cape Girardeau Planning 8�Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 13, 2016 Page 6 of 6 � SUBDIVISION PLATS 1. The record plat of LILMAC East Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Chris Koehler, representing the applicant, was available for questions from the Commission. The plat showed six (6) proposed lots and right-of-way for a new street, Brunswick Court. The staff report explained there are one (1) variance and one (1) exception shown on the plat. The variance is for a reduced setback along the south lot line of Lots 1 and 6 (25 feet required; 5 feet proposed). The exception is for the omission of the required 10 foot utility easement adjacent to the south lot line of Lots 1 and 6. Staff supported both requests because a 25 foot setback and a 10 foot utility easement are shown along the external property lines, making both lots consistent with the rest of the subdivision. The staff report indicated a staff review letter identifying corrections was sent to the applicant. To date, the corrections have not been addressed. A motion was made by Mr. Koetting and seconded by Mr. Kluge to recommend approval of the LILMAC East Subdivision record plat, subject to the corrections in the staff review letter. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Hinckley, Kluge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch) OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION Amendments to Section 30-333 (C-1, General Commercial District) and Section 30-334 (C-2 HiQhwav Commercial District) of the Zoning Code 1. The Commission reviewed proposed amendments to the C-1 (General Commercial) and C-2 � (Highway Commercial) district regulations. Mr. Shrimplin explained that as part of the amendments, some definitions were added or revised to correlate with the changes made to the district regulations. Mr. Welch recommended changing the word "dead" to "deceased" in the definitions of "funeral home" and "mortuary". A motion was made by Mr. Koetting and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the C-1 (General Commercial) and C-2 (Highway Commercial) district regulations including changing the word "dead" to "deceased" in the definitions of"funeral home" and "mortuary". The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Hinckley, K/uge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch) Adjournment Upon motion made by Mr. Koetting and seconded by Mr. Spooler, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, e_�r�;�� Doug Spooler Secretary �