Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 07-09-2014 CITY Of CAPE GtRARDEAU PLANNING & ZbNING COMMISSION � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 9, 2014 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrand, Larry Dowdy, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Ralph Maxton, Scott McClanahan, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch Absent: Jeff Glenn Staff Present: Molly Hood, Carol Peters, Ryan Shrimplin Call to Order: Chairman McClanahan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the June 11, 2014 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Bertrand and seconded by Mr. Spooler. REZONINGS SPECIAL USE PERMITS, AND VARIANCES � 1. 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-5 (High Density Multi-Family Residential) district. Mr. Dowdy abstained from the discussion and vote for financial reasons. Mr. Gary Arnold, applicant, 805 Enterprise Street, explained 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 '/2 acre in area. He would like to construct a twelve (12) unit apartment building on each lot. He stated that the staff report is correct in stating that there are no R-5 zoned properties in the surrounding area. There is an existing apartment complex across Silver Springs Road, however, that has a density similar to what is proposed, and the property is zoned C-2. He pointed out that the existing apartments were constructed under the previous zoning ordinance when there wasn't an R-5 zoning district and apartment buildings were allowed in the C-2 district. Mr. Arnold also stated that apartments could have also been built on the adjacent lots instead of the existing duplexes, under the previous zoning ordinance. He added that he spoke with two of the adjacent property owners and that Mr. Tolliver, owner to the east, had no objections to the project. Mr. Gene Magnus, 3518 Old Hopper Road, spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Magnus stated that he owns the apartments to the west and a vacant 2.3 acre lot to the south, both of which are zoned C-2. He stated the property to the south was originally platted to accommodate apartment buildings and that it is likely he will request to rezone the property in the future. No one spoke in opposition to the request. The staff report recommended denial for two reasons. First, the surrounding area does not contain any R-5 zoned properties. As such, the proposed zoning does not conform to the existing zoning patterns. Second, the R-5 district permits a maximum density of 30 units per 1 acre which, based on the lot sizes, could result in the development of up to 15 units on each lot. This density is much higher than that of � the adjacent R-3 zoned properties containing duplexes; therefore, rezoning the subject properties to R-5 would adversely affect the rights of the adjacent property owners and tenants. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2014 Page 2 � 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-5 (High Density Multi- Family Residential) district. The motion failed with a vote of 3 in favor, 4 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, K/uge, Spooler; Nay: Hinckley, Maxton, McClanahan, Welch; Abstention: Dowdy;Absent: Glenn) 2. The request of Drury Southwest, Inc. for a variance from Development Code Section 25- 1005, driveway spacing, at 101 South Farrar Drive was tabled at the June 11, 2014 meeting. Mr. Kluge once again abstained from the discussion and vote for financial reasons. Mr. Hinckley made a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Maxton, to remove the request from the table for further discussion. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Adrienne Henry, Drury Southwest, Inc., explained that the applicant would like to eliminate an existing gravel drive to construct a shorter, paved driveway closer to the building. No one spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Maxton to approve the variance for driveway spacing at 101 South Farrar Drive. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Hinckley, Maxton, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch;Abstention: K/uge;Absent.� Glenn) 3. A public hearing was hefd on the request of Ruler Foods and Canedy Sign & Graphics for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall signs, at 2103 William Street. Mr. Scott Blank, property owner, represented the applicant and exptained that the request is to transfer a portion of the permitted wall sign area from the north elevation, which faces the street, to the east elevation, which contains the entrance and faces the parking lot. In � response to a question, Mr. Shrimplin clarified that the variance, if approved, will not result in an increase in the maximum permitted wall sign area; it will only result in the transfer of area from one side of the building to another. 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 being redeveloped for a new grocery store and an additional tenant space. Unlike most commercial developments with street frontage, the parking lot is beside the building rather than in front of it. The applicant is locating the grocery store entrance on the east elevation of the building in order to face the parking lot. As such, a variance is being requested to allow wall signage on the same elevation as the entrance. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinp: 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 on the building shall not exceed the maximum sign area � permitted by the Development Code. Since the entire wall sign area is based on the north (street-facing) elevation, granting a variance to allow wall signage on the east City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2014 � Page 3 elevation will reduce the permitted wall sign area on the north 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. 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. Findina: The applicant's request to display wall signage on the same elevation as the entrance, and the decision to locate the entrance facing the parking lot, are 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. 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 reasonable and is based on unique circumstances � 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: 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 signage at 2103 William Street with the staff condition. 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;Absent: Glenn) 4. A public hearing was held on the request of Drury Development Corporation for a variance from Development Code Section 25-202, parking spaces and aisle design, at 157 Siemers Drive. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering, represented the applicant and explained that an expansion is planned for the existing development. Lambert Plaza was developed several years ago in compliance with the parking regulations in effect at the time. The current parking depth requirement for 90° angled parking is 19'. The existing spaces are 18'. The applicant wishes to be consistent and continue the 18' parking space depth. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: � City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 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 property contains an existing shopping center that has a parking space depth of 18 feet. At the time the shopping center was developed, the 18 foot depth complied with the City Code. The Code was later changed to require a 19 foot depth. Thus, the existing shopping center is nonconforming with regard to parking space depth. The applicant is expanding the shopping center and is requesting the variance in order to construct new parking that is consistent with the existing parking. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findinq: The adjacent properties were also developed prior to the Code change and as such, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of the 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: If the variance is denied, the applicant will not be able to provide the � required minimum number of parking spaces per the Development Code. 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: The variance is being requested in order to lay out the new parking in a manner that is consistent with the existing parking, resulting in safe and efficient parking and circulation throughout the development. 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. Findinp: The variance request is to allow the applicant to match the parking pattern of the existing shopping center, which is nonconforming with regard to parking space depth. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to accomplish this purpose. Furthermore, the variance is being requested in order to avoid a variance for the required minimum number of parking spaces. Lastly, the granting of the variance wilf not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners and tenants, nor will it adversely affect the public. 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. � City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2014 � Page 5 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 parking space depth at 157 Siemers Drive. 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; Absent: Glenn) 5. A public hearing was held on the request of Drury Development Corporation for a variance from Development Code Section 25-1005, driveway spacing, at 157 Siemers Drive. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering, represented the applicant and explained that there are two driveways proposed for the expansion of Lambert Plaza, both on Lambert Drive. One driveway will be for customer traffic and the other driveway will be for service and delivery traffic. The proposed driveways are approximately 91' feet apart, with the westernmost driveway aligned across from the entrance to Wehrenberg Theatres. 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 has frontage on two public streets (Siemers Drive and Lambert Drive). As part of the shopping center expansion, the applicant is proposing to construct finro new driveways, both on Lambert Drive. Both driveways are needed to accommodate proper circulation for customer and delivery traffic. Due to site � constraints, it is not practical to provide 125 feet of spacing between the driveways. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Findin : Several of the existing developments in the area have driveway spacing that is less than what is required by the Development Code. As such, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners and 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 improper driveway alignment on Lambert Drive and/or traffic conflicts within the development, which will constitute an unnecessary hardship. Criferion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findin : The variance is being requested in order to locate the driveways in a manner that will result in safe and efficient access for the development. 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. City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2014 Page 6 � Findinq: The variance request is due to a practical difficulty with providing the required minimum driveway spacing in a manner that provides safe and efficient access for the development and also prevents traffic conflicts within the development. Given this premise, along with the fact that other developments in the area also have reduced driveway spacing, 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 driveway spacing at 157 Siemers Drive. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Bertrand, Dowdy, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spoo/er, Welch; Absent: Glenn) Mr. Bertrand left the meeting at this time. 6. 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 applicant and explained that the applicant and her business partners have plans to operate a bed and breakfast, restaurant, and wedding chapel at 141 South Louisiana Avenue. They have contacted the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the use of historic preservation tax credits to � rehabilitate the property. SHPO informed them that in order to receive the tax credits, the property cannot be altered in a manner that would have an adverse effect on its historic character. The proposed site plan shows thirteen (13) off-street parking spaces. SHPO reviewed the site plan and concluded that additional parking spaces could result in an adverse effect on the historic character. Ms. Charlotte Cannon, applicant, 808 7ih Street East, Scott City, MO, also appeared before the Commission and presented each of them with a packet of paperwork as evidence and support to her request. Ms. Cannon stated that the restaurant and wedding chapel would not be operating at the same time, and that service in the restaurant would be by reservation only. She did not feel that there would be any traffic concerns since William Street was designed to take a large number of vehicles from one side of the city to the other. She stated that the neighbors she spoke with were in favor of the bed and breakfast. She indicated that restaurant patrons would use the front entrance of the house while wedding patrons would use the entrance to the rear addition, where the wedding chapel is proposed to be located. She added that the worst case scenario would be that there could be 30 people in the building at one time. No one spoke in opposition to the request. A staff report was submitted to the Commission containing the following findings of fact: Criterion #1: The proposed special use will not substantially increase traffic hazards or congestion. FindinQ: The information provided by the applicant indicates that there will be three guest rooms for the bed and breakfast, plus rooms for the owners, plus a restaurant with 20 seats, plus a wedding chapel with 32 seats. The site plan submitted with the application � shows 13 off-street parking spaces to serve these uses, with one driveway. The application states that the restaurant and the wedding chapel will operate at different City of Cape Girardeau Planning 8�Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2014 � Page 7 times of the day, resulting in a shared parking arrangement. City staff has concerns that the combination of these uses may result in peak traffic demand that exceeds the 13 off- street parking spaces shown on the site plan, even with shared parking. At peak times, the single driveway, which is on William Street, could become congested as numerous vehicles are leaving at the same time (such as at the conclusion of a wedding service). This has the potential to substantially increase traffic hazards and congestion. Additionally, staff has concerns with the parking layout as shown on the site plan. It does not comply with the standards for ADA accessible parking, and some of the parking spaces do not have adequate room for backing out and turning around to exit. Criterion #2: The proposed special use will not substantially increase fire hazards. Findin4: 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. Findin : As stated previously, City staff has concerns about the potential increase in traffic hazards and congestion due to the combination of uses and limited access. If such hazards and congestion occur, the proposed special use will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. The applicant's proposal to operate the restaurant and � the wedding chapel at different times of the day would be difficult to monitor and enforce due to the uses occurring within the same building without physical separation. This adds to the staff's concerns about the proposed special use. Criterion #4: The proposed special use will not adversely affect the general welfare of the community. Findin : The proposed special use will adversely affect the general welfare of the community for the reasons previously stated. Criterion #5: The proposed special use will not overtax public utilities. Findin : The subject property has existing utilities, which are adequate to serve the proposed special use. City staff has had numerous discussions with the applicant regarding the above concerns. The applicant has requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission table her application. Staff believes that the applicant has had ample opportunity to revise her application in order to address the concerns, but has chosen to not do so. As such, staff does not believe the matter should be tabled. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended denial of the Special Use Permit req uest. � A motion was made by Mr. Maxton and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit request. Mr. Welch stated that he had driven by the site on several occasions at various times of the day, and based on his observations, concluded that there City of Cape Girardeau Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2014 Page 8 � could potentially be traffic issues during the busy times of the day. Ms. Cannon stated that she would be willing to install a stop sign at the exit, and reiterated that she did not feel there would be any traffic issues. Mr. Hinckley expressed concern about the potential for the restaurant seating to be expanded if the business is successful. This would increase parking demand and congestion, without any ability to provide additional parking spaces. In response, Ms. Cannon stated that the key to a successful business is capacity control. Restaurants with limited seating are perceived as more desirable because they are hard to get in to. The motion failed with a vote of 0 in favor, 7 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Nay: Dowdy, Hinckley, Kluge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spooler, Welch;Absent: Glenn) SUBDIVISION PLATS 7. The record plat of Williamsburg Phase 2 was reviewed by the Commission. The plat consists of twelve (12) single-family residential lots and dedicated right-of-way for two public streets (Williamsburg Drive and Wheelwright Drive). The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Kluge to recommend approval of the record plat of Williamsburg Phase 2 as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. (Aye: Dowdy, Hinckley, K/uge, Maxton, McClanahan, Spoo/er, Welch;Absent: Glenn) OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION Chairman McClanahan gave an update on the TTF 5 Subcommittee, and announced that the next meeting will be held on July 14, 2014 at 7:00 a.m. at City Hall. The Subcommittee will � continue to work on developing a proposed project list that is fiscally constrained to the anticipated budget. Adiournment Upon motion made by Mr. Spooler and seconded by Mr. Kluge, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. RespectFull submitted, Rand ge Secr tary �