Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 09-10-2014 CiTY Of CARE GIRARDEAU PLACVNING Sc ZONIPtG COMMISSION � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 10, 2014 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrand, Jeff Glenn, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Ralph Maxton, Scott McClanahan, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch Absent: Larry Dowdy 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 August 13, 2014 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Maxton and seconded by Mr. Welch. � REZONINGS, SPECIAL USE PERMITS. AND VARIANCES 1. The request of Charlotte Cannon for a Special Use Permit to allow a bed & breakfast, wedding chapel and restaurant at 141 South Louisiana Avenue was tabled at the August 13, 2014 meeting. Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that Ms. Cannon contacted staff and requested that this item remain on the table. She would like the Commission to consider her request at the October 8, 2014 meeting. 2. A public hearing was held on the request of Nelson Sign Co., LLC for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 1120 North Kingshighway. Mr. Matt Nelson, Nelson Sign Company, explained that as part of a remodel of the Food Giant store, the existing wall signs were removed and replaced with new wall signs in the same locations. The previous signs on the main entrance facing the parking lot were nonconforming, so a variance is being requested to allow the signs on the north e�evation which does not have street frontage. 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 contains an existing grocery store that was recently remodeled. As part of the remodel, the previous wall signs were removed and � replaced with new signs. The previous signs that were located on the north elevation (containing the main entrance) were nonconforming because that elevation does not have street frontage. Once the signs were removed and replaced, the nonconforming status expired. The main entrance to the building faces the parking City of Cape Girardeau Pianning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 2 � lot, which is not located between the building and the street. In most retail developments consisting of a single building with street frontage, both the building and the parking lot face the street. Thus, the location of the parking lot and the orientation of the building constitute a unique condition. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. FindinQ: The north elevation of the building faces an existing commercial development 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 building shall not exceed the maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. Since the permitted wall sign area is based on the east and west elevations, granting a variance to allow wall signage on the north elevation will reduce the permitted wall sign area on these elevations by the same amount. Thus, the applicant 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 applicanYs request to display wall signage on the elevation containing � the main entrance is reasonable and necessary for the convenience of customers and as such, denial of the variance will constitute an unnecessary hardship. 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 reasonable and based on a unique condition of the subject property. 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 building shall not exceed the maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn �""� and seconded by Mr. Spooler to approve the variance for wall signs at 1120 North City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2014 � Page 3 Kingshighway with the staff recommended condition. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch;Absent: Dowdy) 3. A public hearing was held on the request of Adam Kidd for a variance from Development Code Section 25-804(a), parking lot landscaping, at 1305 Broadway. Mr. Adam Kidd, applicant, explained to the Commission that he purchased the subject property to tear down a dilapidated building and expand his parking lot, which is on the adjacent parcel. The variances are being requested to maximize the square footage of the property as a parking lot. 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 applicant owns the subject property as well as the adjacent property (formerly occupied by Global Cafe). He is proposing to use the subject property to expand the existing parking lot. The subject property is small (0.077 acre) and is not deep enough to accommodate the required street landscaping strip width and the proposed parking layout, which is designed to continue the pattern of the existing parking lot. The size of the property, the applicable code requirements and the existing parking lot pattern constitute a unique condition that is not self-imposed. � Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to close an existing driveway on the adjacent property and install a 4 foot wide street landscaping strip in an area that is currently paved. Because the parking lot on the adjacent property is not being altered, these improvements are not required by the Development Code. Thus, the applicant is offering to bring the adjacent property closer into compliance with the Development Code in order to receive the variance. For this reason, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or tenants. 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 result in the loss of more than half of the proposed parking spaces and render the project unfeasible. This will constitute an unnecessary hardship. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findin : The proposed 4 foot wide street landscaping strip still provides for adequate � separation between the parking lot and the right-of-way line, and is wide enough to accommodate plantings. As mentioned previously, the applicant is proposing to add City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 4 � a street landscaping strip on the adjacent property, where there currently is none. As such, the 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 variance is based on a unique condition of the subject property, will not create an adverse effect, and denial will constitute an unnecessary hardship. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to add a street landscaping strip on the adjacent property in order to receive the variance. For these reasons, the granting of the variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. Mr. Bertrand commented that the proposed parking lot development would be a nice improvement to the area. Mr. Hinckley stated that he agreed with the staff findings and felt that the variance was justified. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Glenn to approve the variance for the reduced width of the street landscaping strip at 1305 Broadway. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Hinckley, K/uge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch;Absent: Dowdy) 4. A public hearing was held on the request of Adam Kidd for a variance from Development � Code Section 25-805, bufferyards, at 1305 Broadway. Mr. Adam Kidd, applicant, explained that the variance is being requested to install a privacy fence in lieu of a bufferyard due to space constraints. 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: As mentioned in the preceding variance request, the subject property is small, and is not deep enough to accommodate the bufferyard and the proposed parking layout, which is designed to continue the pattern of the existing parking lot. The size of the property, the applicable code requirements and the existing parking lot pattern constitute a unique condition that is not self-imposed. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: In lieu of a bufferyard, the applicant is proposing to install a 4 foot high privacy fence. It should be noted that due to difference in grade, a significant amount of fill will be necessary, and as such there will be a retaining wall along the east and south property lines. The fence is proposed to be installed on top of the retaining wall. Given the lack of space available for a bufferyard and the presence of the retaining wall, a privacy fence is a reasonable alternative. Therefore, the � granting of the variance request will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or tenants. City of Cape Girardeau Planning 8�Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2014 � 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: Denial of the variance will result in the loss of nearly half of the proposed parking spaces and render the project unfeasible. This will constitute an unnecessary hardship. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. FindinQ: The proposed privacy fence still provides adequate separation and screening of the parking lot from the adjacent residential property to the south, and will be more effective in screening headlights than the plantings required by the Development Code. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findinq: The variance is based on a unique condition of the subject property, will not create an adverse effect, and denial will constitute an unnecessary hardship. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an alternative that will accomplish the same � general purpose as the bufferyard. For these reasons, the granting of the variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request, with the following condition: 1. The final design of the privacy fence shall be subject to approval by the City staff. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Kluge to approve the variance for a privacy fence in lieu of a bufferyard at 1305 Broadway with the staff recommended condition. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Hinckley, K/uge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spoo/er, Welch;Absent: Dowdy) 5. A public hearing was held on the request of Adam Kidd for a variance from Development Code Section 25-604, fence height in the front yard, at 1305 Broadway. Mr. Adam Kidd, applicant, requested a variance to allow a four (4) foot tall privacy fence in the front yard. He explained that the property is a corner lot which is considered to have two front yards. 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: As mentioned in the preceding variance request, the applicant is proposing a 4 foot high privacy fence along the south property line in lieu of a bufferyard. The fence is proposed to wrap around the corner and run along Park Avenue, on top of City of Cape Girardeau Planning 8�Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 6 � the retaining wall. In addition to providing screening, the fence will keep vehicles from protruding over the retaining wall, thereby functioning as a guard. Per the building code, the guard is required to be a minimum of 42 inches high. The location of the parking lot adjacent to a residential use, the need for a retaining wall, and the building code requirement form a unique condition that is not self-imposed. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findin : The proposed fence height is one foot greater than the maximum fence height permitted by the Development Code. The additional height will result in better screening and safety, and as such the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or tenants. 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: Denial of the variance will result in an unnecessary hardship because the fence (guard) will not be at the minimum height required by the building code. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. FindinQ: As stated previously, the additional height will result in better screening and �`"'""� safety; therefore, the 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 variance is based on a unique condition of the subject property, will not create an adverse effect, and denial will constitute an unnecessary hardship. Additionally, the proposed fence height is necessary for proper screening and to meet the building code requirement. For these reasons, the granting of the variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Maxton to approve the variance for fence height in the front yard at 1305 Broadway. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Hinck/ey, K/uge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch; Absent: Dowdy) SUBDIVISION PLATS 6. The preliminary plat of Redhawk Commons was reviewed by the Commission. The plat subdivides a 9.051 acre tract into 26 lots at the northwest corner of Bertling Street and Old � Sprigg Street Road. Mr. Cary Harbison, Bowen Engineering & Surveying, provided an overview of the plat for the Commission. He stated that two access points are proposed for City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2014 � Page 7 the development - one on Bertling Street and another on Old Sprigg Street Road. The development will be built in phases, with the first phase being submitted for staff review in four to six weeks. The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Maxton and seconded by Mr. Kluge to recommend approval of the Redhawk Commons Preliminary Plat as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch;Absent: Dowdy) 7. The record plat of 418 William, LLC Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Tom O'Loughlin, representing 418 William, LLC, presented the plat which creates two lots from existing parcels and vacated right-of-way. Mr. Shrimplin stated that the plat shows a variance for the omission of the required 10 foot wide utility easement adjacent to the rear lot line of each lot, which staff supports. The staff report recommended approvat as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Bertrand to recommend approval of the record plat of 418 William, LLC Subdivision as submitted, including the variance. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch; Absent: Dowdy) 8. The record plat of Rademaker Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Shrimplin explained that the plat adjusts a line between finro lots to avoid the construction of a new building over the lot line. As part of the plat, 30 feet of right-of-way for Perryville Road is � being dedicated as well as the required 10 foot wide utility easement adjacent to the right-of- way lines and the rear lot lines. The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the record plat of Rademaker Subdivision as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch;Absent: Dowdy) 9. The right-of-way dedication plat of Megan Drive was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Chris Bowen, Bowen Engineering 8� Surveying, was available to answer questions from the Commission. Mr. Shrimplin explained that Megan Drive is an existing private street which was constructed to City standards. The plat eliminates the existing access easement and replaces it with a publicly dedicated right-of-way. The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the Megan Drive Right-of-Way Dedication Plat as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch;Absent: Dowdy) OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION Chairman McClanahan gave an update on the TTF 5 Subcommittee, and asked staff to send an email reminder of the next meeting to all Commissioners so that they could attend if they wished. He indicated an emphasis is being placed on maintenance projects. Mr. Glenn explained that a scoring tool is being used to evaluate projects for inclusion in a proposed list, � which will be presented to the City Council in early 2015. Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that a brief presentation will be held at the next meeting regarding the November public safety tax ballot issue. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 10, 2014 Page 8 � Adiournment Upon motion made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Kluge, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ���, -� L'.��.. � �� See�e�er9'' ���7� ��1��,��r�j����. ��a-��muh � �