Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 10-14-2015 CITY Of CAPE GIRARDEAU PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 14, 2015 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrand, Larry Dowdy, Jeff Glenn, William Hinckley, Patrick Koetting, Scott McClanahan, Thomas J. Welch Absent: Randy Kluge, Doug Spooler Staff Present: Carol Peters, Ryan Shrimplin Call to Order: Chairman McClanahan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the September 9, 2015 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Bertrand. REZONINGS, SPECIAL USE PERMITS, AND VARIANCES � 1. A public hearing was held on the proposed zoning of property at the northwest corner of County Road 620 and Deer Creek Road, which is proposed to be annexed into the Cape Girardeau city limits. Mr. Robert Cook, representing the property owner, Americare, explained to the Commission that Americare also owns the adjacent property to the south which is in the city limits and contains The Cottages of Capetown. Americare has plans to construct a memory care facility on the subject property and, as part of its request for City water and sanitary sewer services, executed an annexation petition and agreement. Mr. Shrimplin stated the Cape Girardeau city limits currently stops at the south line of Deer Creek Road, leaving a 25 foot wide strip of unincorporated land between the city limits and the subject property. In 2002, the City acknowledged receipt of an annexation petition and held a public hearing on the Capetown property to the south of the subject property. The City annexed the property but the legal description omitted the 25 foot wide strip because of concerns from an adjacent property owner and because the City did not want to annex half of a street. The annexation of the 25 foot wide strip will run concurrently with the annexation of the subject property and serve as the connecting piece to make the subject property contiguous to the city limits. The staff report recommended the subject property and the 25 foot wide strip be zoned to the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-family Residential) district upon annexation because it permits the proposed use and is consistent with the zoning of the Capetown property to the south. Chairman McClanahan opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to recommend the subject property and the 25 foot wide strip at the northwest corner of County Road 620 and Deer Creek Road be zoned to the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-family � Residential) district upon annexation. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Koetting, McClanahan, Welch) City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 14, 2015 Page 2 of 5 f� 2. A public hearing was held on the proposed zoning of property at 2596 County Road 618, which is proposed to be annexed into the Cape Girardeau city limits. Mr. Shrimplin explained that the City is installing new water mains along State Highway W and County Road 618. In exchange for granting easements, the City has offered to install a tap for each property owner affected by the project. In order to receive the tap, the property owner must execute an annexation petition and agreement. The owner of the subject property submitted his executed documents. The property is contiguous to the city limits and therefore will be annexed at this time. The staff report recommended the subject property be zoned to the R- 1 (Single-Family Suburban Residential) district upon annexation because it contains a single-family dwelling and is located near a single-family subdivision. Chairman McClanahan opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Koetting to recommend the property at 2596 County Road 618 be zoned to the R-1 (Single-Family Suburban Residential) district upon annexation. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Koetting, McClanahan, Welch) 3. A public hearing was held on the request of Sleep Number and Signs, Etc. for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 157 Siemers Drive, Suite 108. Mr. Kevin Harrington, representing Signs, Etc., informed the Commission that Sleep Number would like to install a wall sign on the west elevation of the building, facing Walmart. Other tenants in the same building already have signage on the west elevation. A staff report was � submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: The requested variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner, the applicant or predecessors in title. Findinq: The subject tenant space is in a commercial strip center and has two building frontages (east and south elevations) that are afforded wall signage per the Development Code. The rear of the building faces Walmart and Sam's Club. A private access drive runs through the Walmart and Sam's Club parcels adjacent to the subject property. The access drive functions as a collector for traffic generated by these businesses as well as a thoroughfare for drivers going from State Highway K to Lambert Drive/Shirley Drive and vice versa. As such, the rear of the building has exposure to traffic that is similar to that of a street. This is a unique condition which is not ordinarily found and not created by the developer, the property owner, or the applicant. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: The west (rear) elevation of the building faces existing commercial developments and as such, the display of wall signage will not adversely affect the rights of those property owners and tenants. In order to maintain a standard of fairness among properties, the variance should only be granted with a condition that the aggregate sign area of all wall signs for the subject tenant space shall not exceed � the maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. Since the entire wall sign area is based on the east and south (street-facing) elevations, granting a City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � October 14, 2015 Page 3 of 5 variance to allow wall signage on the west elevation will reduce the permitted wail sign area on the east and south elevations by the same amount. Thus, the tenant does not receive an increase in permitted sign area; instead, they are granted approval to transfer it to another elevation. Criterion #3: The strict application of the provisions of the Development Code from which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property. Findinq: The other tenants in the subject building have signs on the west (rear) elevation. Denial of the variance will constitute an unnecessary hardship because the applicant will be the only tenant that is not permitted to display wall signage on the rear of the building. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findinq: If the variance is granted with the recommended condition of approval, it will not adversely affect the public. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and � intent of the Development Code. Findinq: The variance request is based on a unique condition pertaining to the subject building and property, and the applicant will experience an unnecessary hardship if the variance is denied. As such, granting the variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code as long as the recommended condition of approval is included. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request, with the following condition: 1. The aggregate sign area of all wall signs for the subject tenant space shall not exceed the maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. Chairman McClanahan 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. Glenn to approve the variance for signage on the west building elevation at 157 Siemers Drive, Suite 108 with the staff recommended condition. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Koetting, McClanahan, Welch) 4. A public hearing was held on the request of Gerry Jones for a variance from Development Code Section 25-1005, driveway spacing, at 2006 Walden Boulevard. Mr. Shrimplin explained that a new apartment building is to be constructed off of the small roundabout on Walden Boulevard, and due to the frontage on the roundabout it is not possible to provide � the required minimum spacing between the driveways. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 14, 2015 Page 4 of 5 � Criterion #1: The requested variance arises from a condition which is unique to the property in question and which is not ordinarily found, and is not created by an action or actions of the property owner, the applicant or predecessors in title. Findinq: The subject property is located in the Walden Park planned development. Walden Park is unique in that it is based on New Urbanist principles rather than traditional residential development models. It contains a mix of housing types that are integrated with each other and linked via sidewalks and trails. New Urbanist design emphasizes walkability and the efficient use of land. As such, the lots in Walden Park are smaller than what is typical for these housing types. Additionally, the subject property has frontage on a roundabout and the frontage length is at or less than the minimum required distance between driveways for multifamily uses. The design of Walden Park and the characteristics of the subject property's frontage constitute a unique condition as it pertains to the code requirement. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: The adjacent properties are also in Walden Park, some of which contain multifamily uses with driveway spacing similar to what is proposed. As such, the adjacent property owners and residents will not be adversely affected if the variance is granted. Criterion #3: The strict application of the provisions of the Development Code from which � the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property. Findinq: As stated above, there are other multifamily uses nearby that contain driveway spacing similar to what is proposed for the subject property. In addition, the roundabout frontage is not long enough to accommodate the required minimum driveway spacing. For these reasons, denial of the variance will constitute an unnecessary hardship. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversety affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findinq: Walden Boulevard is a local residential street with generally low traffic volumes. Although the property will contain a multifamily residential use, the proposed driveways will function similar to single-family residential driveways. Thus, granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findinq: The driveway spacing requirement was intended for traditional multifamily developments with typical street frontages, which is not the case here. The uniqueness of Walden Park and the subject property's frontage create circumstances � that warrant the granting of the variance, which will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � October 14, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request. Chairman McClanahan opened the public hearing and seeing no appearances to speak, he closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Koetting to approve the variance for driveway spacing at 2006 Walden Boulevard. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Koetting, McClanahan, Welch) SUBDIVISION PLATS 5. The record plat of Greater Cape Girardeau Business Park Phase II was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Shrimplin stated the plat subdivides Lot 2 of Greater Cape Girardeau Business Park into three (3) lots. The staff report recommended approval of the plat subject to corrections in the staff review letter and an easement extension requested by the City's Engineering Division. A motion was made by Mr. Koetting and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to recommend approval of the Greater Cape Girardeau Business Park Phase 11 record plat, subject to the corrections in the staff review letter and the requested easement extension. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Koetting, McClanahan, Welch) � OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION The Commission discussed dates for the November Planning and Zoning Commission meeting since the next regularly scheduled meeting falls on November 11, 2015, which is the Veterans Day holiday. The Commission tentatively rescheduled the November meeting for Tuesday, November 17, 2015. Adiournment Upon motion made by Mr. Koetting and seconded by Mr. Glenn, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully su mi ed, Randy luge Secretary �