HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 03-11-2015 CITY of CAPE GfRARDEAU
PLAIVNiNG & ZONING COMMISSIOM
�
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
March 11, 2015
City Hall — Council Chambers
Present: Trae Bertrand, Larry Dowdy, Jeff Glenn, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Patrick
Koetting, Scott McClanahan, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch
Absent: None
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 January 14, 2015 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made
by Mr. Koetting and seconded by Mr. Bertrand.
REZONINGS. SPECIAL USE PERMITS, AND VARIANCES
� 1. A public hearing was held on the request of Walter White for a variance from Development
Code Section 25-603(g), fence general standards, at 1013 South Ranney Avenue. Mr.
Dowdy recused himself from the discussion and vote for financial reasons. Mr. Walter White,
460 Mason Street, the applicant, explained that he installed a privacy fence in the front yard
because a neighbor a few lots down on the other side of the street installed a security
camera that faces the direction of his property. He would like to keep the fence in order to
maintain peace in the neighborhood and to offer some privacy for his tenants. 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.
Findin : The subject property is a single-family lot that is adjacent to single-family
lots on both sides. In analyzing the subject property, City staff did not find any
unique conditions that would serve to justify granting the variance. The applicant has
indicated that he constructed the fence in order to screen the subject property from a
neighbor whom he believes is infringing on the privacy of his tenants. In the City
staff's opinion, this situation does not meet the criterion because it is not a condition
of the subject property itself.
Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent
property owners or residents.
� Findinq: Because there is no unique condition of the subject property, the rights of
adjacent property owners and residents will be adversely affected if the variance is
granted. The applicant will receive a special privilege that is not afforded to other
property owners on the block whose properties are similar to the subject property.
City of Cape Girardeau
Planning&Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 11,2015
Page 2
�
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: If the variance is denied, the applicant will have to remove and reinstall the
boards so that the finished side faces outward from the subject property. This will
not constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property.
Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety,
morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general wetfare.
Findinq: The requested variance, if granted, will adversely affect the public because
it does not meet the criteria in the Development Code.
Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and
intent of the Development Code.
Findinq: Granting the requested variance will undermine the general spirit and intent
of the Development Code because the variance request does not meet any of the
criteria.
Based on the above findings, City staff recommended denial of the variance request.
�
Chairman McClanahan opened the public hearing. Mr. Don Howard, 1100 South Ranney
Avenue, spoke in opposition to the request. He explained he felt the fence was installed
illegally and that the fence looked like a "dumpster fence". Mr. Jason Coalter, 1657 County
Road 206, also spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Coalter explained he owns property
at 1015 South Ranney Avenue, which shares a driveway with the subject property. Mr.
Coalter stated he was not contacted regarding the installation of the fence. The fence
restricts visibility for his tenants when they back out of the driveway. He also stated the
fence was not constructed adequately and would not last. Joann McCauly, 1036 South
Sprigg Street, stated she was opposed to the fence because it was a distraction and didn't
look good. Mr. White added that he felt Mr. Howard's cameras directed toward his property
was an invasion of privacy and that the fence was put up to keep peace. Chairman
McClanahan closed the public hearing.
Mr. Glenn stated he sympathizes with Mr. White and agreed he would not want a camera
pointed toward his property, but emphasized that is not what the Commission was asked to
make a determination on. Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that the code only allows
a three (3) foot high fence in the front yard, with at least 50% being open, and the finished
side must face outward from the property. Mr. Hinckley made a motion to approve a six (6)
foot high fence with 50% of it being open which extends down to the ground with treated
lumber and only extends to the sidewalk. Mr. Welch seconded the motion. Mr. Shrimplin
clarified that this particular vote is on the variance request to allow the finished side to face
inward. The motion failed with a vote of 2 in favor, 6 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. (Aye:
Hinckley, Welch; Nay: Bertrand, Glenn, Kluge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spooler,� Abstain:
Dowdy). A motion was then made by Mr. Bertrand and seconded by Mr. Spooler to approve '�,;,,,r�
the variance to allow the finished side of a privacy fence to face inward towards the subject
property at 1013 South Ranney Avenue_ The motion failed with a vote of 2 in favor, 6 in
City of Cape Girardeau
Planning&Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
� March 11, 2015
Page 3
opposition, and 1 abstaining. (Aye: Hinckley, Welch; Nay: Bertrand, Glenn, K/uge, Koetting,
McClanahan, Spoo/er, Abstain: Dowdy)
2. A public hearing was held on the request of Walter White for a variance from Development
Code Section 25-604, fence location, type and height, at 1013 South Ranney Avenue. Mr.
Dowdy recused himself from the discussion and vote for financial reasons. 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.
Findin : The subject property is a single-family lot that is adjacent to single-family
lots on both sides. In analyzing the subject property, City staff did not find any
unique conditions that would serve to justify granting the variance. The applicant has
indicated that he constructed the fence in order to screen the subject property from a
neighbor whom he believes is infringing on the privacy of his tenants. In the City
staff's opinion, this situation does not meet the criterion because it is not a condition
of the subject property itself.
Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent
property owners or residents.
� Findin : Because there is no unique condition of the subject property, the rights of
adjacent property owners and residents will be adversely affected if the variance is
granted. The applicant will receive a special privilege that is not afforded to other
property owners on the block whose properties are similar to the subject property.
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.
Findin : Denial of the variance will not constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the
utilization of the property because the applicant has other options for providing
screening in the front yard, such as installing trees and shrubs.
Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety,
morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare.
Findinq: The requested variance, if granted, will adversely affect the public because
it does not meet the criteria in the Development Code.
Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and
intent of the Development Code.
Findinq: Granting the requested variance will undermine the general spirit and
� intent of the Development Code because the variance request does not meet any
of the criteria.
Based on the above findings, City staff recommended denial of the variance request.
City of Cape Girardeau
Planning 8�Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2015
Page 4 �
Chairman McClanahan opened the public hearing. Mr. Jason Coalter, 1657 County Road
206, stated his opposition to the fence because it was constructed without approval, nor
within City guidelines. Chairman McClanahan closed the public hearing. A motion was
made by Mr. Koetting and seconded by Mr. Spooler to approve the variance for exceeding
the maximum permitted fence height in the front yard at 1013 South Ranney Avenue. The
motion failed with a vote of 2 in favor, 6 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. (Aye: Hinckley,
Welch; Nay: Bertrand, Glenn, K/uge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spooler, Abstain: Dowdy)
Chairman McClanahan stated the variance requests were not approved by the Commission
because they do not meet the variance criteria in the City Code; however, the applicant has
the right to contact his City Council ward representative if he is still having issues with his
neighbors.
3. A public hearing was held on the request of Five Below for a variance from Development
Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 157 Siemers Drive, Suite 101. Mr. Jerry Nunnally
with Canedy Sign 8 Graphics, 4857 County Road 218, representing the applicant, informed
the Commission that Five Below 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 one
building frontage (east elevation) that is 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 tra�c 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) e�evation 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 (street-facing) elevation, granting a variance to
allow wall signage on the west elevation will reduce the permitted wall sign area on
the east elevation 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.
City of Cape Girardeau
Planning&Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 11,2015
� Page 5
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 subject tenant space is in a newly constructed addition to the original
building. The tenants in the original 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 dispfay 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.
Findin : 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, City 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. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition
to, the request. Chairman McClanahan closed the public hearing. A motion was made by
Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Bertrand to approve the variance for signage on the west
building elevation at 157 Siemers Drive, Suite 101 with the staff recommended condition.
The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye:
Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spooler, We%h)
4. A public hearing was held on the request of Jack Young for a Special Use Permit to allow a
retail use in the RUMD (Residential Urban Mixed Density) district at 301 Mill Street. Mr.
Jack Young, 22626 Amador St, Hayward, CA, the applicant, spoke to the Commission
regarding his plans to develop the vacant property. Cornelius Circle, as it is called, will
contain townhouse units and a buiklR�g�aDllt�ining a Convenience market and office on the
lower level and executive rentalS (extended stay suites) on the upper level. A staff report
was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact:
An application has been submitted for a Special Use Permit at 301 Mill Street. The property
� is zoned RUMD (Residential Urban Mixed Density). The applicant is proposing to construct
a development named Cornelius Circle on the subject property, which consists of two
platted lots and half of the vacated Lorimier Street right of way. Cornelius Circle, as
proposed, will consist of seven (7) townhouse units and one (1) building containing a
City of Cape Girardeau
Planning&Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 11,2015
Page 6 �
convenience market and an office on the lower level and two (2) executive rentals (extended
stay suites) on the upper level. Townhouses are a permitted use by right in the RUMD
district. The convenience market, office, and executive rentals are special uses and require
a Special Use Permit. The following variances have been identified as part of the Special
Use Permit request:
1. Omission of the required 20 foot wide bufferyard along the east side of the convenience
market, office, and executive rentals building, due to the access drive. The drive is
proposed in order to provide separate access for customers and delivery/service
vehicles, thereby minimizing the impact of the convenience market on the townhouses
and the executive rentals.
2. Reduced distance befinreen driveways. The size and topography of the property are such
that complying with the minimum driveway spacing requirement is not feasible.
3. Reduced parking for the convenience market (minimum of 10 spaces required; 8
proposed). Given the surrounding neighborhood, significant pedestrian tra�c is likely,
which means less vehicular traffic for the convenience market compared to similar stores
located on major thoroughfares.
4. Reduced parking space depth for the convenience market, office, and executive rentals
building (minimum of 20 feet required, measured perpendicular to the drive aisle; 18 feet
proposed). The amount of the reduction is minor (2 feet) and the parking spaces do
measure 20 feet in depth on angle. �
5. Reduced drive aisle width in the common area (minimum of 24 feet required for one-way
aisles; 17 feet proposed). City staff does not support reducing the width to 17 feet
because the City's Fire Code requires a minimum width of 20 feet for fire apparatus
access. Staff does support reducing the width to 20 feet due to the scale of the
development.
6. A 20 foot drive aisle width in the common area will result in the entry and exit lanes
being side by side with no separation. Thus, there will be one 40 foot wide driveway,
which exceeds the maximum driveway width by 10 feet.
The Zoning Ordinance authorizes the City Council to grant Special Use Permits in
accordance with Section 30-401. In order for a Special Use Permit to be granted, both the
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council must consider and make findings of
fact with regard to certain criteria. City staff has reviewed the criteria and made the following
determinations:
Criterion #1: The proposed special use will not substantially increase traffic hazards or
congestion.
Findinq: Due to the location, scale, and character of the proposed development, City
staff does not anticipate any substantial increase in traffic hazards or congestion. As
noted above, the convenience market is expected to generate a higher proportion of
pedestrian traffic than is typical. �i
Criterion #2: The proposed special use will not substantially increase fire hazards.
City of Cape Girardeau
Planning&Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
� March 11, 2015
Page 7
Findinq: If approved, the development will be constructed in compliance with the City's
Code of Ordinances, including the building and fire codes. Thus, the proposed special
use will not result in an increase in fire hazards.
Criterion #3: The proposed special use will not adversely affect the character of the
neighborhood.
FindinQ: The scale and design of the convenience market, office, and executive rentals
building are appropriate and compatible with the townhouses and the neighborhood. If
the Special Use Permit is granted with the below conditions, the special use will not
adversely affect the character of the neighborhood.
Criterion #4: The proposed special use will not adversely affect the general welfare of the
community.
Findinq: As with Criterion #3, if the Special Use Permit is granted with the below
conditions, the special use will not adversely affect the general welfare of the
community.
Criterion #5: The proposed special use will not overtax public utilities.
Findinq: City staff has verified there are sufficient City utility services available for the
� proposed development.
Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the Special Use Permit
request with the following conditions:
1. Except for the variances granted as part of this permit, the special uses shall meet all
applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Development Code.
2. This approval does not include signage. A sign permit application shall be submitted for
any proposed signs.
3. This approval does not include exterior lighting. A photometric plan and specification
sheets for the proposed exterior light fi�ctures shall be submitted as part of the building
permit application.
4. This approval does not include landscaping. A landscaping plan shall be submitted as
part of the building permit application.
5. The sidewalk in the Mill Street right of way shall be increased to 5 feet in width.
6. The walkway on the east side of the convenience market, office, and executive rentals
building shall be reduced from 6 feet to 5 feet and the drive aisle width increased from
17 feet to 18 feet.
� 7. The aisle width of the circular drive (including the entry and exit lanes) shall be a
minimum of 20 feet.
8. All drive aisles shall be designated as one-way with appropriate signage installed.
City of Cape Girardeau
Planning&Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 11,2015
Page 8 �
9. The retaining wall adjacent to the access drive for the convenience market, office, and
executive rentals building shall be constructed using decorative modular block or poured
concrete with a decorative pattern, the design of which shall be subject to approval by
the City staff. The finish of the guardrail shall also be subject to City staff approval.
10. The final design of the convenience market, office, and executive rentals building shall
be subject to approval by the City staff.
11. The dumpster shall be fully screened on all sides by a solid fence or wall with solid
gates. The design of the dumpster screening shall be subject to approval by the City
staff.
12. This permit shall automatically expire twelve (12) months from the date of issuance if the
use for which it was granted has not commenced.
13. Major modifications to the special use shall require the approval of the City Council.
14. This permit is not transferable without the consent of the City Council.
Chairman McClanahan opened the public hearing. Mr. Jason Coalter, 1657 County Road
206, expressed his concerns with allowing a convenience store which might bring crime to
an area which has been cleaned up, and wondered if there was enough land on which to fit
the development. Mr. Young responded by stating it would not be a liquor store and
reassured the Commission that the convenience market would be a nice addition for �
residents in the area. Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that because this was a
Special Use Permit request, conditions restricting the sale of liquor or the hours of operation
could be imposed. Chairman McClanahan closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bertrand stated he believes everyone is on the same page with regard to the request,
but asked what could be done to make sure the use and development are appropriate. Mr.
Kluge stated if liquor were to be sold, a liquor license would be required. Mr. Hinckley felt it
was not the Planning 8� Zoning Commission's responsibility to regulate how someone runs a
business. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Welch to approve the
Special Use Permit request for a retail use in the RUMD (Residential Urban Mixed Density)
district at 301 Mill Street with the variances and the recommended conditions in the staff
report. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye:
Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, K/uge, Koetting, McClanahan, Spoo/er, Welch)
SUBDIVISION PLATS
5. The record plat of Cornelius Circle Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. The
subdivision is zoned RUMD (Residential Urban Mixed Density) and the plat subdivides the
property into seven (7) townhouse lots, one (1) nonresidential lot and one (1) common area
consisting of a private street. The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A
motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of
the Cornelius Circle Subdivision record plat as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of
9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge,
Koetting, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch) �
w
City of Cape Girardeau
Planning&Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 11, 2015
� Page 9
OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION
Other Communication
Mr. Shrimplin reported the City recently hosted two interactive sessions with the public to obtain
input regarding the proposed projects for TTF 5. Overall, the sessions were well attended.
Each attendee was given an envelope containing $20 million in "Cape Cash" to use in "voting"
for the projects they felt should be funded by the tax. Each envelope also contained a voucher
which could be used to "vote" for the Armstrong Drive project, which is a TTF 3 project that has
not commenced, or exchange it for an additional $3 million. TTF 5 will be placed on the August
ballot for a city-wide vote.
Adiournment
Upon motion made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Bertrand, the Commission voted
unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfulfy submitted,
Ran y luge
� Secretary
�