Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 10-09-2013 CITY Of CAPE GIRARDEAU PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES October 9, 2013 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrand, Larry Dowdy, Jeff Glenn, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Ralph Maxton, Scott McClanahan, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch Absent: None Staff Present: Carol Peters, Ryan Shrimplin Call to Order: Chairman Bertrand called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the September 11, 2013 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Glenn. HEARINGS, DISCUSSION &VOTING � 1. A public hearing was held on the request of Coalter & Felty Investments for two variances from Development Code Section 25-604, fence height and fence surface, at 212 South Ellis Street. Mr. Roy Felty, 119 South Ellis Street, explained that he would like to install a six (6) foot high privacy fence to screen his property at 212 South Ellis Street from the trash dumpster located on the adjacent property to the north. The dumpster is near the property line, and its unsightly appearance is deterring potential renters who look at his property. No one else spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. 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. Findina: The subject property is adjacent to an apartment building. The footprint of the apartment building occupies most of the lot upon which it is located. Due to the lack of available space on the site, the dumpster serving the apartments is located adjacent to the front yard of the subject property. The dumpster was installed prior to the City's adoption of dumpster screening requirements, therefore the City cannot require the landlord to install screening. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to install a 6 foot tall privacy fence on the subject property so as to provide screening from the dumpster. The proximity of the dumpster to the applicant's front yard is unique and was not created by an action or actions of the subject property owner, the applicant or predecessors in � title. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 9, 2013 Page 2 � Findin : Granting the variance to allow the privacy fence will not adversely affect adjacent property owners or residents. The fence will actually benefit property owners down the street that also have a view of the dumpster. 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 constitute an unnecessary hardship for the applicant because the dumpster infringes on their tenants' enjoyment of the property and also makes the property less desirable from a sale or lease standpoint. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Findin : Granting the variance will not adversely affect the public. As stated previously, the fence will actually benefit other property owners down the street. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Findin : The applicant is requesting the variance to alleviate a hardship that is � not self-imposed. If granted, the variance will allow the applicant to screen the dumpster from their property as well as the neighboring properties, thus providing a public benefit. As such, the variance request meets the spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of both variance requests, subject to the following conditions: 1. A fence permit shall be obtained prior to installation of the fence. 2. The fence shall not contain barbed wire, razor wire, or similar material containing sharp points or edges. 3. The fence shall be properly maintained at all times. If at any time the fence is not properly maintained or is altered in a manner that is inconsistent with the terms of this variance, then this variance shall become null and void. The Commission agreed that a privacy fence would be appropriate to block the view of the dumpster but didn't think six feet would be a sufficient height to block the view if the lid of the dumpster were open. Mr. Hinckley suggested allowing the fence to be up to eight (8) feet in height. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Glenn to approve the variance request to exceed the maximum permitted fence height with the conditions in the staff report, and authorized the fence to be up to eight (8) feet in height. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. A motion was made by Mr. �;r+� Maxton and seconded by Mr. Glenn to approve the variance request to install a privacy Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes October 9, 2013 � Page 3 fence that does not meet the 50% open surface requirement, with the conditions in the staff report. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. SUBDIVISION PLATS 1. A record plat for Clark Avenue Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Bob Herbst, Prudential Bridgeport Realty, explained that the plat subdivides one tract containing two buildings into two lots, with one building on each lot. The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to recommend approval of the Clark Avenue Subdivision record plat as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 2. A record plat for a Resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, & 3 of a Resubdivision of Lot No. 3 of Twin Lakes Subdivision was on the agenda. Prior to the meeting, the applicant requested that the review of the plat be tabled. A motion was made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Hinckley to table review of the record plat for a Resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, & 3 of a Resubdivision of Lot No. 3 of Twin Lakes Subdivision. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. Adiournment Upon motion made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. McClanahan, the Commission voted ,� unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (�,�,��L�+�i//�G ��c_— Scott McClanahan Vice-Chairman �