Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 07-10-2013 CITY Of CAPE GIRARDEAU � PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ! \ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES July 10, 2013 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Larry Dowdy, Jeff Glenn, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Ralph Maxton, Scott McClanahan, Doug Spooler, Thomas J. Welch Absent: Trae Bertrand Staff Present: Carol Peters, Ryan Shrimplin Call to Order: Vice Chairman McClanahan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the June 12, 2013 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Kluge. � HEARINGS. DISCUSSION &VOTING _� 1. A public hearing was held on the request of the City of Cape Girardeau to rezone property along LaSalle Avenue and Veterans Memorial Drive from the C-1 (General Commercial) District to the M-1 (Light Manufacturing/Industrial) District. Mr. John Mehner, Cape Girardeau Area MAGNET, spoke on behalf of the City. He explained that the City recently purchased the property from Southeast Missouri State University Foundation with the intention of developing a business park. The City and the MAGNET are partnering to market the property to light industrial businesses that are characterized by self-contained facilities, such as distribution centers and warehouses. The business park will not contain heavy industries. No one else spoke in favor of the request. Five individuals spoke in opposition to the request. Mrs. Dorothy Seyer, 2877 County Road 618, presented a letter for the record expressing her concerns that the rezoning request is inconsistent with the future land use of the property as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Vicki Lantz, 2763 County Road 618, explained that she owns the Lazy L Safari Park and is concerned with truck traffic that will be generated by the business park. She requested that the public hearing be continued until more information is shared with the public, including a detailed site plan for the proposed business park. Mr. Mike Ingram, representing the Whispering Oaks Homeowners Association, expressed concerns that the public was not adequately informed of the meeting. He also wanted to know which property was being considered for the rezoning and what is being planned for the property. Mr. Shrimplin stated that a detailed site plan for the business park has not been prepared, nor is one required for a rezoning request. Mr. Hinckley added that it is not customary for a site plan to be developed for this type of project until a business is recruited to the area so that they can determine where � they would like to locate on the site and how much space they would need. Mr. Shrimplin stated that the rezoning application and related documents are on file at City Hall and are available to the public upon request. Mr. Dowdy noted that County Road 618 was not specifically mentioned in the notice as being part of the rezoning request. He asked Mr. Ingram how the rezoning would affect his subdivision. Mr. Ingram replied that the main Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 10, 2013 � Page 2 access to Whispering Oaks is from County Road 620, but residents of the Meadows of Whispering Oaks enter their subdivision from County Road 618. Mrs. Patty Schlosser, 2911 County Road 618, stated her opposition to the rezoning request and indicated that she did not see a notification of the meeting. She also requested that the public hearing be continued until more information becomes available. Mr. Tom Emmendorfer, 115 Omaka Springs, stated that he noticed the signs that were posted on the property had fallen down; also, he was concerned about truck traffic on County Road 618 and felt that a master plan should be developed so more information should be shared with the public prior to any action being taken. In response to comments from property owners who stated they did not receive a notification of the public hearing, Mr. Shrimplin recited Section 30-206(h) of the City Code which states, "No amendment, supplement, or change of the regulations or restrictions or boundaries of districts shall become effective until after the City Council has held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. At least fifteen (15) days' notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. The City Council may provide for the posting of notices of the hearing on the tract and for other means of notifying the public or interested persons of the proceedings." He then stated that the City Code does not require the Planning and Zoning Commission to hold a public hearing, and there are no requirements for providing public notice of the hearing. As a courtesy, the Planning Services Division has made it a standard practice to mail a notice of the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing to each adjoining property owner. Additionally, Planning staff post one or more signs on the subject property containing the date, time, location and subject of the public hearing. The information on the sign is updated for the � City Council public hearing after the Planning and Zoning Commission has made its recommendation. In compliance with Section 30-206(h), a legal notice is advertised in the Southeast Missourian at least 15 days prior to the City Council's public hearing. Mr. McClanahan thanked everyone for sharing their concerns and encouraged them to attend the City Council public hearing. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Maxton and seconded by Mr. Hinckley to recommend approval of the request to rezone property on LaSalle Avenue and Veterans Memorial Drive from the C-1 (General Commercial) District to the M-1 (Light Manufacturing/Industrial) District. Mr. Glenn recused himself from the discussion and vote due to a business relationship. Mr. Hinckley commented that developers have been criticized for not adequately informing property owners of their intent and it appears that has happened with this request. Mr. Shrimplin replied that under the Missouri Revised Statues, a rezoning cannot be tied to a site plan. A rezoning request only has to meet the standard of being "reasonable and in reasonable conformity with the existing uses and value of the immediately surrounding properties". Mr. Hinckley reminded everyone that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not make a decision on the request, only a recommendation to the City Council. He encouraged those who felt strongly about the issue to attend the City Council meeting where another public hearing would be held. After the discussion, the motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 1 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. Mr. McClanahan reminded everyone that the City Council public hearing will be held on August 5, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. 2. A public hearing was held on the request of R-Vision Properties, LLC to rezone property at 720 South West End Boulevard from the R-2 (Single-Family Urban Residential) District to the R-3 (High Density Single-Family Residential) District. Mr. George Reutzel, 712 South � West End Boulevard, explained that he and his wife are requesting the rezoning because they hope to operate a bed and breakfast on the property in the future, which is not permitted in the current zoning district. A bed and breakfast is a special use in the proposed Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � July 10, 2013 , Page 3 � zoning district. In the meantime, they intend to rent out the house that is located on the property. No one else spoke in favor of, or in opposition to, the request. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to recommend approval of the request to rezone 720 South West End Boulevard from the R- 2 (Single-Family Urban Residential) District to the R-3 (High Density Single-Family Residential) District. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 3. A public hearing was held on the request of Thomas M. Meyer to rezone property on Rivermont Drive from the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District to the RUMD (Residential Urban Mixed Density) District. Mr. Thomas M. Meyer, 314 North Lorimier Street, explained that he desires to construct a single-family residence on the property. He mentioned he has lived in the area for 33 years where there have always been single-family homes. Mr. John Schneider, 212 North Main Street, representing Lloyd and Debbie Ivey, One Rivermont Drive, was concerned with the future development of the site and suggested rezoning the property to R-1 (Single-Family Suburban Residential) instead. Mr. Shrimplin explained that under the previous Zoning Ordinance, a single-family dwelling was a permitted use in the R-4 district. This changed when the City adopted a new Zoning Ordinance in 2010. He added that the RUMD district is more compatible with the surrounding zoning than the R-1 district. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Glenn to recommend approval of the � request to rezone property on Rivermont Drive from the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-Family r 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. 4. A public hearing was held on the request of Brandon O. Williams to rezone property at 514 Olive Street from the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District to the R-5 (High Density Multi-Family Residential) District. Mr. Brandon Williams, 3208 Lakewood Drive, stated that he would like to construct an apartment building on the site and would like for it to be rezoned to allow for more dwelling units to be constructed. No one else spoke in favor of the request. Mr. Steve LeGrand, 3618 Old Hopper Road, requested clarification on the differences between the R-4 and R-5 zoning districts. Mr. Shrimplin replied that the main difference is that the R-4 district permits a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre, while the R-5 district permits a maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Glenn to recommend approval of the request to rezone property at 514 Olive Street from the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District to the R-5 (High Density Multi-Family Residential) District. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 5. A public hearing was held on the request of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC c/o CIS Communications for a Special Use Permit to install a temporary telecommunication tower in the CBD (Central Business) District at 401 Independence Street. Mrs. Marsha Haskell, 351 Silver Springs Road, representing AT&T, explained that the request is to place a temporary telecommunication tower on the property to be used while a permanent tower is being � constructed at 418 William Street, if the Special Use Permit is approved for that site. Mr. Brick Storts, representing CIS Communications at 749 Old Ballas Road, St. Louis, MO, stated that a 60 foot to 80 foot tower will be used at City Hall instead of the 120 foot tower requested in the application. He also mentioned that electrical lines will be run to the site for power. A lease agreement is being finalized for twelve months which will include terms to Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 10, 2013 Page 4 � return the property to its original condition. Mrs. Haskell added that the goal is to have the temporary tower in place for the shortest time possible, not to exceed twelve months. No one else spoke in favor of, or in opposition to the request. The staff report recommended approval of the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. The City shall not be held liable for any damage caused to, or caused by, the special use. The applicant shall keep and hold harmless the City, its employees, agents, servants and assigns from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, judgments, cost and expenses resulting from the special use and the approval thereof. Furthermore, the applicant shall be held liable for any damage caused by the special use. 2. Except for the variances granted as part of this permit, the special use shall meet all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Development Code. 3. Major modifications to the special use shall require the approval of the City Council. 4. This permit shall automatically expire twelve (12) months from the date of issuance if the use for which it was granted has not commenced. 5. This permit is not transferable without the consent of the City Council. A motion was made by Mr. Maxton and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of � the Special Use Permit at 401 Independence Street with the conditions in the staff report. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 6. A public hearing was held on the request of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC c/o CIS Communications for a Special Use Permit to install a temporary telecommunication tower in the C-1 (General Commercial) District at 3004 Gordonville Road. Mrs. Marsha Haskell, 351 Silver Springs Road, representing AT&T, explained that the request is to place a temporary telecommunication tower on the property for obtaining data to determine the best location for a permanent tower in the area. Mr. Brick Storts, representing CIS Communications at 749 Old Ballas Road, St. Louis, MO, agreed to work with Mr. Shrimplin and St. Francis Medical Center to find a suitable location on the site. No one else spoke in favor of, or in opposition to the request. The staff report recommended approval of the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. The special use shall be located in the grass area on the west side of the parking lot. 2. The special use shall meet all applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Development Code. 3. Major modifications to the special use shall require the approval of the City Council. 4. This permit shall automatically expire twelve (12) months from the date of issuance if the use for which it was granted has not commenced. 5. This permit is not transferable without the consent of the City Council. � Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � July 10, 2013 Page 5 A motion was made by Mr. Welch and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit at 3004 Gordonville Road with the conditions in the staff report. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 7. A public hearing was held on the request of Rhodes Properties, LC for a variance from Development Code Section 25-205(c)(1), improvement of parking areas, at 2311 Bloomfield Street. Mr. Scott Rhodes, 2301 Bloomfield Street, stated that he is planning to construct an office/warehouse facility at 2311 Bloomfield Street. The request is being made to permit a gravel surface directly behind the building to be used for the loading and unloading of small but heavy construction equipment. The gravel lot would not be visible from the street. Mr. Chris Koehler, Koehler Engineering at 194 Coker Lane, indicated that the gravel lot would also aid in water filtration and drainage. 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 applicant is proposing a gravel vehicular surface behind the building due to the nature of the warehouse items that will be loaded and unloaded. These items include small construction equipment such as skid steers and small tractors, which will � be moved using an all terrain forklift. The weight of the equipment and the rotations required by the forklift would damage a conventional paved surface. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: The applicant is requesting an exception to a requirement that applies to other commercially-zoned properties. Due to the unique circumstances with the proposed use, however, Staff does not believe the granting of the variance will adversely affect the adjacent property owners or residents. It should be noted that the applicant owns the adjacent property to the east and south. 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 will not impose an unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property, however, the variance is being sought in order to avoid a practical difficulty. The owner will have to pay for frequent repairs to the pavement as a result of the loading and unloading of the equipment. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. � Finding: If the variance is approved, the gravel surface will be screened from the street by the building. Because of the other improvements on the site, the gravel will not wash out into the street or onto an adjacent property. Therefore, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 10, 2013 � Page 6 Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Finding: As stated previously, the intent behind the variance request is to avoid a practical difficulty. The Development Code requires a vehicular surface that, in the context of the proposed use, creates a maintenance problem for the applicant. Staff does not believe the code was intended to create such conflicts. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Kluge to recommend approval of the variance request. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 8. A public hearing was held on the request of Rhodes Properties, LC for a variance from Development Code Section 25-912, Driveways, at 2311 Bloomfield Street. Mr. Scott Rhodes, 2301 Bloomfield Street, stated that a site plan was originally submitted showing two driveways on the subject property. These driveways did not meet the minimum distance requirement in the Development Code, therefore one driveway was eliminated. A request is being made to widen the driveway on the adjacent property at 2301 Bloomfield Street to 56 feet to accommodate the necessary truck turning movements. 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 property is unique in that it lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate two driveways at a distance that complies with the Development Code. The applicant had initially proposed two driveways, but Staff did not support a variance for driveway spacing. As such, the applicant is now proposing to share the existing driveway on the adjacent property to the east (which is also owned by the applicant). In order to accommodate the necessary truck turning movements, the driveway needs to be widened beyond the maximum 30 feet per the Development Code. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: The variance is being requested in order to avoid a variance that was not supported by Staff. After reviewing the proposed variance, Staff determined that the widening of the driveway 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. Finding: Denial of the variance will constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the property. The property is zoned C-2, which permits several uses that � require deliveries by semi trucks. The property lacks sufficient frontage to accommodate two driveways without a variance. Because Staff does not support a variance for Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � , July 10, 2013 Page 7 driveway spacing, the applicant's only recourse is to utilize a shared driveway and obtain a variance for a driveway width that accommodates the necessary truck turning movements. 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 allow the applicant to construct a driveway that is safe and has the necessary clearances for truck traffic. Thus, 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. Finding: As stated previously, the applicant is faced with a hardship due to the lack of sufficient frontage. In order to reasonably use the property for commercial purposes, he must obtain a variance. As such, the requested variance will not undermine the spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Hinckley to recommend approval of � the variance request. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. SUBDIVISION PLATS 9. A record plat for Boulder Crest Estates Second was reviewed by the Commission. The plat combines two lots between Boulder Crest Drive and Megan Drive. Dr. Charles Moon, 1359 North Mount Auburn Road, was in attendance to answer any questions from the Commission. He explained that the lots are being combined in order to construct a medical office building and parking lot. The staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to recommend approval of the record plat of Boulder Crest Estates Second as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 10. A record plat for the Resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, & 3 of Carole Rhodes Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. The plat reconfigures three existing lots by combining two of the lots and moving a lot line that is shared with the third lot. Mr. Scott Rhodes, 2301 Bloomfield Street, was in attendance to answer any 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 Resubdivision of Lots 1, 2, & 3 of Carole Rhodes Subdivision as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 11. A record plat for Olive Street Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. The plat � combines three tracts into one lot at 514 Olive Street. Mr. Brandon Williams, 3208 Lakewood Drive, was in attendance to answer any questions from the Commission. The — staff report recommended approval as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Welch to recommend approval of the record plat of Olive Street Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes July 10, 2013 � Page 8 Subdivision as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION Staff Communication Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that Governor Jay Nixon signed House Bill 331 and House Bill 345 into law on Friday, July 5, 2013. The Missouri Municipal League is commissioning a detailed analysis of the effects of the laws on municipalities. The laws will have a profound impact on the ability to regulate telecommunication towers and other wireless infrastructure. Mr. Shrimplin stated that AT&T and Network Real Estate met with concerned citizens on July 8, 2013 to discuss the Special Use Permit request for a telecommunication tower at 418 William Street. The City Council held its public hearing on July 1, 2013 but postponed taking action on the request due to concerns raised at the hearing. The Council will vote on the Special Use Permit request at the August 5, 2013 meeting. Adiournment Upon motion made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Dowdy, the Commission voted unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. � Respectfully submitted, CJ.� C� Ran Kluge Secretary �