Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 08-13-2014 CITY of CARE GIRARDEQU PLANCVING & ZONING COMMISSION � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2014 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrand, Larry Dowdy, Jeff Glenn, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Ralph Maxton, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch Absent: Scott McClanahan Staff Present: Molly Hood, Carol Peters, Ryan Shrimplin Call to Order: Vice Chairman Glenn called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the July 9, 2014 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Welch. REZONINGS SPECIAL USE PERMITS, AND VARIANCES 1. A public hearing was held on the request of Marvin Ferrell, Jr. to rezone property at 890 South Kingshighway from the M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing/Industrial) district to the M-1 (Light � Manufacturing/Industrial) district. Ms. Susan Layton, 1650 North Kingshighway, represented the applicant. Ms. Layton explained that the property served as a mobile home lot and sales office for many years. The business closed and the property was rezoned from M-1 to M-2 after the closure. The applicant wishes to rezone the property to once again have a sales office on the property. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the request to rezone property at 890 South Kingshighway from the M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing/Industrial) district to the M-1 (Light Manufacturing/Industrial) district. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch) 2. A public hearing was held on the request of Steven K. Dirnberger to rezone property at 902 South Kingshighway from the M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing/Industrial) district to the M-1 (Light Manufacturing/Industrial) district. Ms. Susan Layton, 1650 North Kingshighway, represented the applicant. Ms. Layton explained that this property is also partially owned by Mr. Ferrell and they would like to rezone this property the same as 890 South Kingshighway. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Maxton and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the request to rezone property at 902 South Kingshighway from the M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing/Industrial) district to the M-1 (Light Manufacturing/Industrial) district. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, Spoo/er, Welch) � 3. A public hearing was held on the request of Jack Young to rezone property at 301 and 305 Mill Street from the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-family Residential) district to the RUMD (Residential Urban Mixed Density) district. Mr. Jack Young, applicant, 301 Mill Street, explained that he is requesting the rezoning in order to construct a single-family/townhouse City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 2 � development on the property. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Maxton to recommend approval of the request to rezone property at 301 and 305 Mill Street from the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-family Residential) district to the RUMD (Residential Urban Mixed Density) district. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch) 4. A public hearing was held on the request of Gary Arnold to rezone property at the intersection of Silver Springs Road and Shamrock Circle from the C-2 (Highway Commercial) district to the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-family Residential) district. Mr. Dowdy abstained from the discussion and vote for financial reasons. Mr. Gary Arnold, applicant, 805 Enterprise Street, reminded the Commissioners that he is requesting to rezone two lots: one at the northeast corner of the intersection, and the other at the southeast corner. Each lot is approximately 'h acre in area. His request to rezone the lots to R-5 (High Density Multi-family Residential) in order to construct a finrelve (12) unit apartment building on each lot was recommended for denial by the Commission at the July 9, 2014 meeting. He withdrew that application and changed the request to rezone the property to R-4 (Medium Density Multi-family Residential), which will allow him to construct eight (8) units per lot. He added that he spoke with the adjacent property owners, who were in favor of his request. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. The staff report recommended denial. The R-4 district permits a maximum density of 18 units per 1 acre which, based on the lot sizes, could result in the development of up to nine � (9) units on each lot. This density is higher than that of the adjacent R-3 zoned properties containing duplexes; therefore, staff felt rezoning the subject properties to R-4 would adversely affect the rights of the adjacent property owners and tenants. Mr. Glenn commented that while the adjacent properties are zoned R-3, there are several R-4 properties in close proximity. A motion was made by Mr. Bertrand and seconded by Mr. Welch to recommend approval of the request to rezone property at the intersection of Silver Springs Road and Shamrock Circle from the C-2 (Highway Commercial) district to the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-family Residential) district. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Hinckley, K/uge, Maxton, Spoo/er, Welch;Abstention: Dowdy) 5. A public hearing was held on the request of Mark Rademaker for a variance from Development Code Section 25-202, parking spaces and aisle design, at 2958 Boutin Drive. Mr. Ty Gramling, Koehler Engineering 8� Land Surveying, represented the applicant and was available for questions from the Commission. 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. Findinp: The subject property contains an existing self-storage facility that is proposed to be expanded. The dnve aisles between the existing storage buildings are 20 feet wide. At the time the facility was constructed, the 20 foot width complied with the City � Code. The Code was later changed to require a 24 foot width. Thus, the existing facility is nonconforming with regard to drive aisle width. Additionally, there are two easements City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 � Page 3 on the property that prevent the new buildings from being shifted in order to achieve a 24 foot width for two of the four new drive aisles. These circumstances 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. Findin : The variance affects the new drive aisles, which are internal to the development and thus will not adversely affect the adjacent property owners or residents. 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 a substantial reduction in the number of storage units and/or square footage, which will adversely affect the feasibility of the project and thus 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 applicanYs engineer has demonstrated to the City staff that the proposed � site layout can accommodate the necessary turning movements for fire apparatus. 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: As stated previously, the variance request is due to circumstances that constitute a unique condition. The request only affects the interior of the development, which would still be accessible for firefighting purposes. In addition, the variance is only being requested for two of the four new drive aisles, which means the applicant is requesting the minimum variance necessary. 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. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to approve the variance for aisle width at 2958 Boutin Drive. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch) 6. A public hearing was held on the request of UT Hospitality Group, LLC for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 3036 William Street. Mr. Brian Suntrup, 14 North Henderson Avenue, explained to the Commission the variance is being requested to place a wall sign at the east end of the building facing Best Buy for added visibility from William Street, utilizing the remaining thirty-one (31) square feet of allowed � sign area which was not used on south elevation. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 4 � 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 an end cap of a commercial strip center with frontage on William Street. The tenant space is narrow but is afforded a wall sign facing the street, per the Development Code. The sign on the front of the tenant space has restricted visibility from the east due to a large slope in front of the adjacent Best Buy and Logan's Roadhouse developments. This constitutes 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: The east 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 area of all wall signs for the subject tenant space shall not exceed the maximum sign area permitted by the Development Code. Since the entire wall sign area is based on the south (street-facing) elevation, granting a variance to allow wall signage on the east elevation will reduce the permitted wall sign area on the south elevation 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. j� 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 a hardship because the applicant will not be able to display the necessary wall signage to properly advertise its business to drivers coming from the east. 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, � subject to the following condition: City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 /I� Page 5 F 1 1. The aggregate sign area of all wall signs on 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. Maxton and seconded by Mr. Welch to approve the variance for wall signs at 3036 William Street with the staff recommended condition. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, K/uge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch) 7. A public hearing was held on the request of Phillip B. Smith, Architect for a variance from Development Code Section 25-1005, driveway spacing, at 402 South Kingshighway. Mr. Phillip B. Smith, applicant, 332 South Silver Springs Road, explained that a driveway is proposed near the center of the lot for a retail development. The lot is not wide enough to allow the required spacing between the existing driveways on the adjacent lots. 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 property is a "through lot" with frontage on two public streets (South Kingshighway and Commercial Street). The property is to be developed for a � retail building. As part of the development, the applicant wishes to install a new driveway on Commercial Street. The existing developments adjacent to the subject property on both sides have driveways that are near the property line. Due to the location of these driveways and the width of the subject property, it is not possible to locate a driveway befinreen them that meets the minimum driveway spacing requirement. This constitutes 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 variance request is minor—a reduction of 11 feet and 13 feet, respectively. In addition, Commercial Street is a local street with relatively low traffic volumes. The proposed driveway will be primarily used by delivery and service trucks. Customer traffic will generally use the two existing driveways on South Kingshighway. 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. Findin : If the variance is denied, the applicant will be deprived of his right to install a driveway on a street that his property abuts, through no fault of his own, thereby constituting an unnecessary hardship. 1� 7 Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 6 t� � �,.i/ Findinq: As stated previously, the variance request is minor, and the proposed driveway will not be used frequently because it will not be the primary access for customers. Thus, 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 granting of the variance will not undermine the spirit and intent of the Development Code because the applicant is not able to locate a driveway on Commercial Street in compliance with the driveway spacing requirement, due to the locations of the adjacent driveways. The variance request is the minimum necessary and if granted, it will not result in an adverse effect. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request. Mr. Jody Geiser, 807 North Sprigg Street, owner of the adjacent lot to the south, stated that he has no objections to the request. No one spoke in opposition to the request. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to approve the variance for driveway spacing at 402 South Kingshighway. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch) 8. A public hearing was held on the request of Phegley Farms, Inc. for a variance from Development Code Section 25-1005, driveway spacing, at 1942 Rock Creek Lane, Building A. Mr. Ty Gramling, Koehler Engineering & Land Surveying, explained that the variance � was requested to allow a driveway to be constructed 98' from the nearest driveway. The subject property contains a portion of floodway which restricts the placement of the building and need for the driveway at the proposed location. 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 property is to be developed for an apartment building. In order to provide water and sanitary sewer services to the proposed building, it will be necessary to extend the public mains. The City requires public mains to be within an easement. Buildings are not permitted to encroach on an easement. Due to the width of the property and the proposed locations of the easements for the main extensions, the applicant is limited in where he can place the building and the parking area. This constitutes 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. Findina: The variance request is minor — a reduction of 7.4 feet. In addition, Rock Creek Lane is a local street with relatively low traffic volumes. As such, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or � residents. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 � Page 7 Criterion #3: The strict application of the provisions of the Development Code from which the variance is requested will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the utitization of the property. Findinq: If the variance is denied, the applicant will have to "flip" the building and the parking area to achieve the minimum driveway spacing. City staff would not support "flipping" the site layout because it would create a short offset between the driveway and Larkspur Court, which can lead to traffic conflicts. Because staff would not support the "flipped" site layout, the applicant would bear an unnecessary hardship. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findin : As stated previously, the variance request is minor, the traffic volumes on Rock Creek Lane are relatively low, and denial of the variance could lead to traffic conflicts. Thus, 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. Findin : The granting of the variance will not undermine the spirit and intent of the Development Code because of the aforementioned factors affecting the site layout. � The variance request is the minimum necessary and if granted, it will not result in an adverse effect. 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. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Bertrand to approve the variance for driveway spacing at 1942 Rock Creek Lane, Building A. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, Spoo/er, Welch) 9. A public hearing was held on the request of Heideman Associates, Inc. for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 102 Siemers Drive. Mr. Michael Velloff, applicant, 240 Larkin Williams Industrial Court, St. Louis, MO, presented the request to place a wall sign on the east elevation of the building which does not have street frontage. He explained that the current building, which was destroyed by a fire, had a sign on the east elevation and they are just asking to replace it with a similar sign as part of the redevelopment. 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. Findin4: The subject property contains a restaurant building that sustained � substantial damage from a recent fire. Due to the extent of the damage, the applicant has determined that it is necessary to demolish the existing building and construct a new building in its place. This constitutes a unique condition that is not self-imposed. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 8 � Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: The east elevation of the building faces a C-2 zoned property that contains a single-family dwelling. As part of the redevelopment of the subject property, the applicant is required to install a bufferyard with plantings to screen the development from the dwelling. Thus, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. 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 on the building shall not exceed the maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. In this case, the maximum permitted wall sign area is based on the north, south, and west elevations as each of them directly face a street. Granting a variance to allow wall signage on the east elevation will reduce the permitted wall sign area for the other elevations by the same amount. Thus, the applicant does not receive an increase in permitted wall sign area; instead, they are granted approval to transfer a portion of 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 building previously had wall signage on the east elevation, which had � to be removed in preparation for the demolition. The signage was nonconforming and once it was removed, the nonconforming status expired. Denial of the variance will impose an unnecessary hardship on the applicant because they will no longer to be permitted to display wall signage on that side of the building, as a result of the fire and the subsequent loss of the nonconforming status. 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. Findinp: 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 on the building shall not exceed the � maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 � Page 9 Ms. Nancy Browne, 407 South Kingshighway, Suite 400, represented Mr. and Mrs. Earl Siemers, the adjacent property owners. She stated that the Siemers' have no objections to a sign facing their home. No one spoke in opposition to the request. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Spooler to approve the variance for wall signs at 102 Siemers Drive with the staff recommended condition. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinck/ey, Kluge, Maxton, Spoo/er, Welch) 10. A public hearing was held on the request of Heideman Associates, Inc. for a variance from Development Code Section 25-805, bufferyards, at 102 Siemers Drive. 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 property is adjacent to a C-2 zoned property that contains a single- family dwelling. Although the adjacent property is zoned commercial, the applicant is required to install a 20 foot wide bufferyard along the property line because the adjacent property is being used for residential purposes. Due to the width of the subject property and the necessary improvements for the redevelopment, it is not possible to install a bufferyard that is 20 feet wide. This constitutes 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 granting of the variance as requested will adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners and residents because the applicant is not requesting the minimum variance necessary. The north-south drive aisles on the proposed site plan exceed the minimum widths required by the Development Code. If the site plan is revised to reduce the widths of these drive aisles to their minimums, the bufferyard width can be increased to a minimum of 15 feet — nearly double the proposed width. If the variance is granted with a condition that the above revisions are made to the site plan, it will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. 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 as requested will not constitute an unnecessary hardship because the site plan can be revised to increase the bufferyard width. 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. City of Cape Girardeau Planning 8�Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 10 � Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findin : The variance as requested is not justified because it is not the minimum variance necessary. If the variance is granted with the recommended condition of approval, however, the variance will be the minimum necessary, which 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 site plan shall be revised to reduce the north-south drive aisle widths to the minimums permitted by the Development Code, and increase the bufferyard width along the east property line to a minimum of 15 feet. The proposed privacy fence shall be installed in the bufferyard and extend the entire length of the adjacent property containing the single-family dwelling. The staff report was amended after staff was made aware that the existing curb on the east side of the restaurant functions as a retaining wall and extends several feet deep. There is also a sump pump system located in the grass area befinreen the curb/wall and the property line. The system was installed years ago by the developer of the restaurant (formerly Hardee's), to help mitigate the impact of stormwater runoff on the Siemers property. The Siemers' indicated to staff that they would prefer the existing curb/wall be left in place to preserve the sump pump. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the bufferyard variance request, with the following conditions: � 1. No work performed on the subject property shall disturb the existing sump pump system. This includes the installation of the privacy fence and landscaping within the bufferyard. 2. The privacy fence shall be installed directly adjacent to the existing curb/wall. 3. The entire bufferyard shall be properly maintained at all times, including but not limited to: landscaping, privacy fence, and the existing sump pump system. Mr. Velloff stated that he concurs with the amended staff report, but requested the installation of boxwood bushes instead of a fence. Ms. Browne explained that the main concern for the Siemers' is the operation of the sump pump system and not disturbing the curb/retaining wall. Ms. Browne requested the item be tabled to allow time to discuss the issues with the Siemers'. Mr. Hinckley made a motion to table the bufferyard variance request to allow time for discussion. Mr. Bertrand seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Mr. Dan Drury, President, Midamerica Hotels Corporation, requested the Commission amend the order of the agenda items to allow item 16 be heard before the five Midamerica Hotel variance requests. 16. A public hearing was held on the request of Charlotte Cannon for a Special Use Permit at 141 South Louisiana Avenue, which is zoned R-3 (High Density Single-family Residential). � Mrs. Pam Davidson, Keystone Design, represented the appficant and explained that a revised site plan had been submitted which corrected some of the parking concerns. She City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 � Page 11 also indicated that property has been leased across the street at 136 South Louisiana Avenue, which would supply nine (9) additional parking spaces for the proposed bed and breakfast. Ms. Cannon presented a draft parking plan for the leased space and indicated there would be access to the area via an alley. Mr. Dowdy commented that it appeared the public portion of the alley stopped short of Louisiana Avenue. Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that the revised site plan and additional information were received shortly before the meeting, therefore staff has not had adequate time to review the items and make a recommendation. Ms. Cannon stated that she spoke with MoDOT, and they agreed that there is not a traffic hazard, nor a congestion problem, along Witliam Street. Mr. Shrimplin replied that staff was forwarded an email from the MoDOT Southeast District Traffic Engineer to Ms. Cannon, informing her that MoDOT cannot provide a professional opinion on whether or not there is a traffic hazard or congestion problem on William Street, and suggested that she hire an engineering firm to conduct a traffic impact study. Ms. Cannon then submitted to the Commission photos of traffic along William Street that she had taken between 3:00 p.m. and 6:38 p.m. on Tuesday, July 22, 2014. Mr. Shrimplin stated that because the Special Use Permit application has been amended to include the property at 136 South Louisiana Avenue, which is separately owned, written consent from that property owner is required in order to take action on the application. Mr. Hinckley made a motion to table the Special Use Permit request. Mr. Bertrand seconded the motion, which passed by a unanimous vote. 11. A public hearing was held on the request of Midamerica Hotels Corporation for a variance � from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 207 South Mt. Auburn Road. Mrs. Melanie Cantrell, Midamerica Hotels Corporation, explained that the Hampton Inn being constructed on the subject property has street frontage along Mt. Auburn Road and Doctors Park Drive which, per the code, would be allowed wall signage. The variance is being requested to have wall signage on all four sides of the building, staying within the square footage allowed for only the two sides with street frontage. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Variance for wall siQnaqe on elevations with no street frontaqe 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 near Interstate 55 and State Route K (William Street) but does not have frontage on either one. The Development Code limits wall signage to elevations that have street frontage. While the proposed hotel will benefit from displaying wall signage along its two street frontages (South Mount Auburn Road and Doctors Park Drive), the lack of frontage along Interstate 55 and State Route K puts the hotel at a significant disadvantage. This constitutes 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: The subject property is located in a commercial development containing similar businesses and as such, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or tenants. In order to maintain a standard of City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 12 � fairness among properties, the variance should only be granted with a condition that the aggregate sign area of all wall signs on the building shall not exceed the maximum permitted wall sign area per the Development Code. In this case, the maximum permitted wall sign area is based on the east and south elevations as each of them directly face a street. Granting a variance to allow wall signage on the north and west elevations will reduce the permitted wall sign area for the other elevations by the same amount. Thus, the applicant does not receive an increase in permitted wall sign area; instead, they are granted approval to transfer a portion of it to other elevations. 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 be at a disadvantage because the hotel will not be able to display wall signage in a manner that provides identification and advertising to the interstate and the state route. This constitutes 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 based on a unique condition of the subject property that puts the applicant at a disadvantage in terms of displaying wall signage that can be seen from the interstate and the state route. If the variance is granted with the recommended condition of approval, it 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 aggregate sign area of all wall signs on 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. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Spooler to approve the variance for wall signs at 207 South Mt. Auburn Road with the staff recommended condition. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinck/ey, K/uge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch) 12. A pubfic hearing was held on the request of Midamerica Hotels Corporation for a variance from Development Code Section 506(b), freestanding signs - area, at 207 South Mt. Auburn i� Road. Mrs. Melanie Cantrell, Midamerica Hotels Corporation, stated that a variance is requested to increase the sign area of a freestanding sign from the maximum allowed 150 City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 � Page 13 square feet to 359 square feet, which is the standard size of Hampton Inn signs. Mr. Glenn expressed his concern that the sign would be double the maximum size allowed. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Variance to exceed maximum freestandinq siqn area (pylon siqn on Doctors Park Drive) 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 has frontage on South Mount Auburn Road and Doctors Park Drive. Although it does not have frontage on Interstate 55 and State Route K (William Street), the property is visible from both highways. The proposed hotel, which is permitted wall signage, is four stories in height, which is taller than the buildings on the adjacent properties. Thus, the hotel will have reasonable exposure to the major thoroughfares. As such, there is not a unique condition that would justify the granting of the variance. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a freestanding sign that is � more than double the permitted sign area. Without a unique condition to justify it, the granting of the variance will adversely affect the adjacent property owners and tenants because it will confer on the applicant a special privilege that is not given to other property owners in this development. 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 because the applicant will still be able to construct freestanding signage on the subject property, in addition to wall signage and directional signage. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findin : Granting of the variance will adversely affect the public order because the applicant will receive a special privilege that is not justified. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. FindinQ: The applicant is requesting a special privilege in order to construct a freestanding sign that is larger than what is permitted by the Development Code. � This privilege is not based on conditions that are unique to the subject property. The privilege will adversely affect the adjacent property owners as well as the public, and denial of the variance will not result in an unnecessary hardship. As such, the City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 14 � granting of the variance will undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended denial of the variance request Mrs. Cantrell commented that in order to gain visibility from the interstate, the sign needed to be the size requested. Mr. Dan Drury, President, Midamerica Hotels Corporation, added that the size of the sign is comparable to other signs in the area, which have received variances in the past. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Spooler to approve the variance for freestanding signage area at 207 South Mt. Auburn Road. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, K/uge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch). Mr. Hinckley commented that the variance was approved on the basis of highway traffic visibility and consistency with other highway signs in the area. 13. A public hearing was held on the request of Midamerica Hotels Corporation for a variance from Development Code Section 506(b), freestanding signs - height, at 207 South Mt. Auburn Road. Mrs. Melanie Cantrell, Midamerica Hotels Corporation, stated that the request is to increase the freestanding sign height from the allowed 35 feet maximum to 75 feet. She indicated that the sign needs to be that height to be visible due to the distance from the interstate. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Variance to exceed maximum freestandinq sign heiqht (pvlon siqn on Doctors Park Drive) �} 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 has frontage on South Mount Auburn Road and Doctors Park Drive. Although it does not have frontage on Interstate 55 and State Route K (William Street), the property is visible from both highways. The proposed hotel, which is permitted wall signage, is four stories in height, which is taller than the buildings on the adjacent properties. Thus, the hotel will have reasonable exposure to the major thoroughfares. As such, there is not a unique condition that would justify the granting of the variance. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a freestanding sign that is more than double the permitted sign height. Without a unique condition to justify it, the granting of the variance will adversely affect the adjacent property owners and tenants because it will confer on the applicant a special privilege that is not given to other property owners in this development. 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. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 � Page 15 Findin : Denial of the variance will not constitute an unnecessary hardship because the applicant will still be able to construct freestanding signage on the subject property, in addition to wall signage and directional signage. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findinq: Granting of the variance will adversely affect the public order because the applicant will receive a special privilege that is not justified. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findin : The applicant is requesting a special privilege in order to construct a freestanding sign that is larger than what is permitted by the Development Code. This privilege is not based on conditions that are unique to the subject property. The privilege will adversely affect the adjacent property owners as well as the public, and denial of the variance will not result in an unnecessary hardship. As such, the granting of the variance will undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended denial of the variance request. � No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. A motion was made by Mr. Bertrand and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to approve the variance for freestanding signage height at 207 South Mt. Auburn Road. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch). Mr. Hinckley commented that the variance was approved on the basis of highway traffic visibility and consistency with other highway signs in the area. Mr. Spooler then made a motion to remove agenda item number 10 from the table to continue discussions regarding the bufferyard variance at 102 Siemers Drive. Mr. Kluge seconded the motion, which passed with a unanimous vote. Ms. Browne informed the Commission that the Siemers'felt the integrity of the wall is most important to them and they are fine with no fence or plantings being installed in the bufferyard, to avoid the risk of damaging the wall. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Kluge to approve the variance to maintain the existing bufferyard width, with no additional plantings, at 207 South Mt. Auburn Road, with the following conditions: 1) No work performed on the subject property shall disturb the existing sump pump system. 2) The entire bufferyard shall be properly maintained at all times, including but not limited to: landscaping and the existing sump pump system. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: � Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, K/uge, Maxton, Spoo/er, Welch) 14.A public hearing was held on the request of Midamerica Hotels Corporation for a variance from Development Code Section 25-303, exterior lighting, at 207 South Mt. Auburn Road. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 16 � Mr. Dan Drury, President, Midamerica Hotels Corporation, expressed his concerns with the City's lighting regulations. He indicated that the regulations should be re-evaluated because they are very limited with today's needed security measures. Mr. Shrimplin replied that staff is in the process of reviewing the zoning and development codes, and will be presenting recommended changes in the future. Exterior lighting is one of the areas where staff will be recommending changes. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Variance to exceed maximum exterior lightinq footcandles 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 applicant proposes to provide 12 parking spaces on the adjacent property to the north in order to meet the required minimum number of parking spaces for the hotel. The adjacent parking is to be located along the north property line of the subject property. The proposed exterior lighting plan shows light poles with dual fixtures along the north property line. The footcandle levels along the north property line are drastically higher than the maximum level permitted by the Development Code — as much as 18 times the maximum level in some spots. City staff asked the applicant to revise the lighting plan in order to lower the footcandle levels and minimize the variance. This can be accomplished by reducing the number � of fixtures and/or changing to a fixture with a lower output. The applicant has not submitted a revised lighting plan. As such, there is not a unique condition that would justify the granting of the variance. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: The granting of the variance will adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners and tenants because the applicant is not requesting the minimum variance necessary. 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. Findinp: Denial of the variance will not constitute an unnecessary hardship because the lighting plan can be revised to reduce the footcandle levels. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findinq: Granting of the variance will result in glare on both the subject property and the adjacent property to the north, thereby adversely affecting the public. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and � intent of the Development Code. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 � Page 17 Findinq: The variance is not justified because it is not the minimum variance necessary. As such, the granting of the variance will undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended denial of the variance request. Mr. Drury added that the proposed photometric plan would aid in lighting the adjacent commercial property also owned by Midamerica Hotels Corporation as well as Doctors Park Drive, which serves other businesses in the area. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Spooler to approve the variance for exterior lighting at 207 South Mt. Auburn Road. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch) It was noted that it was taken into consideration that there were no residential properties affected by the increased lighting, and that the proposed light levels will help with security in the commercial area. 15.A public hearing was held on the request of Midamerica Hotels Corporation for a variance from Development Code Section 25-203, required number of parking spaces, at 207 South Mt. Auburn Road. Mr. Dan Drury, President, Midamerica Hotels Corporation, explained that Hampton Inn requires a minimum square footage of ineeting room space for a certain number of hotel rooms. He informed the Commission that Midamerica Hotels Corporation � also owns the property across the street, which could be used for additional parking. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Variance to reduce the number of required on-site parkinq spaces 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 applicant proposes to provide 12 parking spaces on the adjacent property to the north in order to meet the required minimum number of parking spaces for the hotel on the subject property. There is a unique condition in that the applicant owns both properties. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findin : The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or tenants because the variance only affects the adjacent property to the north, which is owned by the applicant. Because the applicant could sell either property at any time, the variance should only be approved with the condition that a cross-parking and cross-access easement shall be excecuted, recorded, and a copy submitted to the City at such time the subject property and the adjacent property to the north are not under common ownership. F` '� 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. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 Page 18 � Findinq: Denial of the variance will constitute an unnecessary hardship because the site plan cannot be revised to accommodate an additional 12 parking spaces without extending into the adjacent future tenant space to the east. 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. Findin : The variance request is reasonable due to the fact that the applicant owns both the subject property and the adjacent property to the north, which has plenty of parking spaces. Granting of the variance with the recommended condition of approval 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. A cross-parking and cross-access easement shall be executed, recorded, and a copy submitted to the City at such time the subject property and the adjacent ii� property to the north are not under common ownership. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Kluge to approve the variance for required number of parking spaces at 207 South Mt. Auburn Road with the staff recommended condition. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch) SUBDIVISION PLATS 17. The record plat of Pacific Rim Addition .was reviewed by the Commission. The plat combines finro lots at 1512 Independence Street. Mr. Robert Wade, 334 Francis Drive, Jackson, MO, applicant, was present to answer questions from the Commission. The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Bertrand and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the record plat of Pacific Rim Addition as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Glenn, Hinckley, K/uge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch) 18. The record plat of Mocarrico Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. The plat combines two lots at 402 South Kingshighway. Mr. Dowdy abstained from the discussion and vote for financial reasons. Mr. Phillip Smith, 332 South Silver Springs Road, applicant, was present to answer questions from the Commission. The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Maxton to recommend approval of the record plat of Mocarrico Subdivision as submitted. The motion � passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Glenn, Hinckley, K/uge, Maxton, Spooler, Welch;Abstention: Dowdy) City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes August 13, 2014 � Page 19 OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION Mr. Shrimplin gave an update on the TTF 5 Subcommittee, and announced that the next meeting will be held on August 18, 2014 at 7:00 a.m. at City Hall. The Subcommittee will continue to work on developing a proposed project list. Adiournment Upon motion made by Mr. Bertrand and seconded by Mr. Kluge, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted Ran K u e Secretary � �