Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 09-11-2013 �ITY of CAPE GIRARDEAU PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES September 11, 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 A work session was held at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the request of Dr. Michael J. Jessup for a variance from the fence regulations at 80 South Plaza Way (The Venue). Mr. Shrimplin distributed photos of the subject area, including the existing courtyard and fences. He explained � that this is the third time Dr. Jessup has requested a fence variance for this property. The first variance request was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The second request was approved as a temporary fence during restricted hours on a weekly basis (3:00 p.m. Friday through 11:59 p.m. Sunday). The variance expired because the required fence permit was not obtained in time, and the fence was being left up throughout the week. The City ordered Dr. Jessup to have the fence removed. He is now requesting a new variance to install fences in the front yard along the west, south, and east property lines with a portion extending into the Merriwether Street right-of-way to enclose a tree inside the courtyard. He explained the request consists of a permanent 7 '/ foot fence along the west property line; a permanent 8 foot fence along the east property line; and a permanent 4 foot fence along the south property line. During the restricted hours, the 4 foot fence would be extended to 7 'h feet by adding a second fence on top that would attach using pegs and holes. Per the Development Code, fences for commercial uses are limited to 3 feet in height in the front yard. Mr. Shrimplin stated that a License and Indemnity Agreement would be necessary for the portion of the fence in the right- of-way, and that there is a public water main in the right-of-way near the property. Dr. Jessup acknowledged that the City would not be liable in the event the fence is damaged or removed in order to access the main, and that he would be responsible for restoring the fence at his own cost. Several Commissioners expressed concerns over safety and long term appearance of a fence which would be converted from 4 feet to 7 '/2 feet. Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that they have the option of approving a variance to allow the fence to be 7 '/2 high permanently. In response to a question, Mr. Shrimplin stated that none of the surrounding property owners have expressed concerns with the variance request. Several Commissioners indicated that they would prefer to grant a variance to allow the 7 '/ foot fence along the south property line on a permanent basis. � REGULAR MEETING Call to Order: Chairman Bertrand called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 2 � The minutes of the August 14, 2013 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. McClanahan. HEARINGS. DISCUSSION &VOTING 1. A public hearing was held on the request of Meyr Properties, LP to rezone property along Baldwin Drive from the C-2 (Highway Commercial) District to the RUMD (Residential Urban Mixed Density) District. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering & Land Surveying, explained that the property owner had originally anticipated developing this property for commercial uses, which was why he had it rezoned from R-1 to C-2 last year. Since that time, the residential development market has grown, and the owner now wishes to develop the property for residential uses. No one else spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. Mr. Shrimplin stated that the property owner intends to construct duplexes and multifamily dwellings on the property, and that RUMD is the only residential zoning district that permits both uses. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Glenn to recommend approval of the request to rezone property along Baldwin Drive from the C-2 (Highway Commercial) District to the RUMD (Residential Urban Mixed Density) District. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 2. A public hearing was held on the request of Dr. Michael J. Jessup for a variance from Development Code Section 25-604, fence height, at 80 South Plaza Way. Dr. Jessup, 80 South Plaza Way, appeared before the Commission and explained that he owns The Venue � which is located on the property. Years ago, he converted a portion of the parking lot into a courtyard to be used for weddings and other outdoor events. He is seeking the variance in order to completely enclose the courtyard for aesthetic, privacy, and safety reasons. 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. Finding: The subject property has frontage on the Merriwether Street right-of-way. This portion of Merriwether Street terminates just west of the property, intersecting South Plaza Way, a private street. Across Merriwether Street is the back of the building formerly occupied by NARS and The Pink Galleon. To the west is Check Please, and to the east are single family houses. This portion of Merriwether Street has low traffic volumes and functions as a local street. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to enclose the courtyard that is adjacent to the right-of-way. The courtyard is used for weddings and other outdoor events at The Venue. The proposed fence will screen the street and the back of the NARS building from the activities in the courtyard. These conditions are unique to the subject property. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: The rights of adjacent property owners and residents will not be adversely � affected by the granting of the variance due to the unique conditions that form the basis for the variance, as explained above. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � September 11, 2013 Page 3 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. Finding: Denial of the variance request will constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property as it pertains to this particular use. The applicant will be limited to a three (3) foot tall fence in the front yard along Merriwether Street, which will adversely affect the character and usage of the courtyard. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Finding: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public; in fact, it will result in a more cohesive looking fence for the courtyard, and provide better security for patrons in the courtyard. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Finding: The intent of the three (3) foot height limit on fences in the front yard for commercial uses is to prevent privacy fences along streets that have medium to high � traffic volumes and are highly visible to the public. As stated above, the subject property is located on a local street with low traffic volumes and is not highly visible to the public. This condition, as well as the need to enclose the courtyard for aesthetic and security reasons, serves as a basis for granting the variance, and therefore would not undermine the spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request, 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. Based on the discussion that took place in the work session, a motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Hinckley to approve a variance for a permanent 7 '/ foot fence in the front yard along the west and south property lines, and a permanent 8 foot fence in the front yard along the east property line, subject to the conditions in the staff report and with the added condition that the style of the fence along the south property line match that of the fence along the west property line. Although not a part of the variance, the � Commission expressed support for the issuance of a License and Indemnity Agreement to permit the fence to encroach in the Merriwether Street right-of-way in order to enclose the tree. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 4 � 3. A public hearing was held on the request of Penzel Construction Company, Inc. for a variance from Development Code Section 25-805, bufferyards, at 3364 Percy Drive. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering & Land Surveying, explained that Penzel Construction is redeveloping the Roland Machinery property. Roland Machinery is continuing to operate out of the existing building while the new building is being built. The request is to reduce the required bufferyard screening. Instead of installing plantings and a solid barrier as required by the Development Code, Penzel is proposing to install a 6 foot privacy fence along the east property line. 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. Finding: The subject property has been used by an excavation equipment company for many years. The applicant plans to redevelop the property by demolishing the existing building and constructing a new building and parking/vehicular surface area for the same business. The Development Code requires a Type C bufferyard as part of the redevelopment where it is adjacent to a commercial use or zoning district. This requirement did not exist when the property was originally developed. Per the code, the bufferyard is required along the east property line which is adjacent to a property that is zoned C-2 (Highway Commercial District). The adjacent property is undeveloped. This combination of circumstances is unique to the subject property. � Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: The variance request primarily affects the adjacent property to the east, which is undeveloped. As such, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect an existing development. The granting of the variance will also not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners, as explained below. 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. Finding: Based on the length of the east property line, the applicant is required to install all of the following: twelve (12) small deciduous trees, twelve (12) medium or large deciduous trees, sixteen (16) conifer trees, eighty (80) shrubs, and a solid barrier consisting of a six (6) foot tall solid wood fence, solid masonry wall, or continuous evergreen hedge. Given the fact that this is a redevelopment of an existing industrial use adjacent to an undeveloped commercially zoned property, these requirements seem excessive and would appear to impose an unnecessary hardship upon the use of the property. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. � Finding: The applicant is only requesting a variance for the required plantings in the bufferyard, not for a complete waiver of the bufferyard. The development will still be Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 11, 2013 � Page 5 outside of the twenty (20) foot bufferyard strip, and the applicant will install a six (6) foot tall solid wood fence that will adequately screen the development from the adjacent undeveloped property. 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. Finding: The type C bufferyard is intended to provide separation and screening of a manufacturing/industrial use from a commercial or residential use that would otherwise be adversely affected. In this case, the industrial use has existed on the subject property for many years, and is adjacent to a property that is zoned commercial but has no existing use. As stated above, the applicant still intends to provide the bufferyard with a solid barrier, which given the existing conditions meets the spirit and intent of the Development Code even without the required plantings. Based on the above findings, City staff recommended approval of the variance request, 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. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the variance request, subject to the conditions in the staff report. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. SUBDIVISION PLATS 4. A record plat for Baldwin Village was reviewed by the Commission. The plat subdivides a tract into nine (9) lots to be developed for duplexes and multifamily dwellings on Baldwin Drive directly across from Baldwin Place Phases I & II. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering & Land Surveying, was available for questions from the Commission. The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Maxton and seconded by Mr. Glenn to recommend approval of the Baldwin Village record plat as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 5. A record plat for a Resubdivision of Lots 1 & 2 of Mt. Auburn Subdivision No. 5 was reviewed by the Commission. The plat reconfigures two lots at the southwest corner of Mount Auburn Road and Beavercreek Drive. Lot 1 is developed, and the parking lot crosses the current interior lot line. The line is being shifted west so that the parking lot is entirely on � Lot 1. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering & Land Surveying, was available for questions from the Commission. The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes September 11, 2013 Page 6 � Baldwin Village record plat as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION 6. The Commission reviewed a request for a 180-day extension of two variances granted to Marketplace Development, LLC. The variances were for a transfer of wall sign area and a reduction in the required number of parking spaces at the northeast corner of William Street and South Ellis Street. The variances, which are valid for 180 days, were approved by the Commission on March 13, 2013. The applicant is requesting the extension due to delays in the development schedule for the Family Dollar store planned for the site. A motion was made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Hinckley to approve the variance extension. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 7. The Commission reviewed a request for a 180-day extension of a variance granted to TB Sage Enterprises, LLC for driveway spacing. The variance, which is valid for 180 days, was approved by the Commission on May 8, 2013. The applicant is requesting the extension due to delays in development plans. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Hinckley to approve the variance extension. The motion passed with a vote of 9 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. Adjournment Upon motion made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Hinckley, the Commission voted � unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Respectfull submitte , ; � and K u Secretary �