Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 05-08-2013 CITY Of CAPE GIRARDEAU PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES May 8, 2013 City Hall — Council Chambers Present: Trae Bertrand, Larry Dowdy, Jeff Glenn, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Ralph Maxton, Scott McClanahan, Doug Spooler Absent: Thomas J. Welch 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 April 10, 2013 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Maxton. HEARINGS, DISCUSSION & VOTING � 1. A public hearing was held on the request of Meyr Properties to rezone property on Autumn Leaf Drive from the C-2 (Highway Commercial) District to the R-3 (High Density Single- Family Residential) District. The applicant was not in attendance to present the request. Mr. Shrimplin explained that the request is to rezone a small portion of the proposed Baldwin Place Phase II subdivision from the C-2 (Highway Commercial) District to the R-3 (High Density Single Family Residential) District to make it consistent with the rest of the subdivision for residential use. No one 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 property on Autumn Leaf Drive from the C-2 (Highway Commercial) 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. 2. Chairman Bertrand explained that a public hearing was scheduled on the request of AT & T Mobility for a Special Use Permit to install a telecommunication tower in the CBD (Central Business) District at 418 William Street. Prior to the meeting, the applicant requested the public hearing be tabled until the June 12, 2013 meeting. A motion was made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Maxton to table the request until the June 12, 2013 meeting. 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 CVS Pharmacy for a variance from Development Code Section 25-504(e), off-premise signage at 2161 William Street. Mr. Doug Lands, Canedy Sign & Graphics, explained that the request is to place an off-premise � monument style sign on the adjacent Plaza Tire Service property. Mr. Shrimplin stated that __ CVS Pharmacy has three street frontages. Per the code, CVS is permitted three freestanding signs on its property. In exchange for allowing the off-premise sign, the applicant has agreed to limit itself to only two freestanding signs on its property. No one Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2013 Page 2 � 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 CVS property has three street frontages. Per the Development Code, one freestanding sign is permitted per street frontage. The applicant is proposing two freestanding signs on the property and one on the adjacent Plaza Tire property. This request for an off-premise freestanding sign is somewhat unique in that the CVS and Plaza Tire developments are part of an overall redevelopment for the entire block. There is cross-access through the development. CVS is proposing the off- premise sign because the southern access point (on Good Hope Street) is several hundred feet from its property. CVS is proposing a shared monument sign similar to the one that was proposed as part of the Plaza Tire variance request back in March. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: The application states that CVS agrees to forgo a third freestanding sign on its property in exchange for variance approval to install the proposed off-premise sign. This proposed trade-off will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or tenants. Plaza Tire owns the other properties on the block, and will be � sharing the monument sign. 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 result in an unnecessary hardship. Nonetheless, the applicant's request is reasonable due to the proposed trade-off. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Finding: The proposed sign will not create an adverse impact to the public. The sign will comply with all other provisions of the Development Code, as well as the City's building and electrical codes. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Finding: In cases such as this one, where an applicant agrees to give up certain signage rights in exchange for other signage, the granting of the variance meets the general spirit and intent of the Development Code because the overall signage for the property is not increased. The applicant does not receive a special privilege that is denied to other property owners with similar circumstances. � Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2013 � Page 3 Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request with the condition that the subject property (2161 William Street) shall be permitted no more than two (2) freestanding signs. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. Spooler to recommend approval of the variance request, subject to the conditions in the staff report. 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 TB Sage Enterprises, LLC for a variance from Development Code Section 25-1005, driveway spacing, at 867 North Clark Avenue. Mr. McClanahan recused himself from the public hearing due to his wife being an employee of the Cape Girardeau Senior Center, which is adjacent to the subject property. Mr. Phillip Smith, architect, and Mr. Randy Sparkman, applicant, presented the variance request to install a driveway approximately 105 feet from the nearest driveway, which is on the Cape Girardeau Senior Center property on Clark Street. Per the code, the minimum driveway spacing is 125 feet. The proposed driveway would be directly across from Dunklin Street. Mr. Sparkman explained he spoke with the adjacent property owners, and he presented letters from each of them indicating they were not willing to share a driveway, but stated they had no objection to the variance request to allow the driveway at the proposed location. Mr. Sparkman further indicated that he spoke with Ameren regarding the possibility of moving the guy wires on the property. He found out that Ameren is not willing to move the lines at this time, and it would be cost prohibitive to have the lines moved. No one 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 one street frontage. In order to meet the required minimum driveway spacing, the applicant would need to locate the driveway near the mid point of the street frontage. The middle section of the street frontage is occupied by Ameren power lines (including utility poles and guy wires) which, according to the applicant, would be cost-prohibitive to relocate. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: The applicant has indicated that it is unlikely the adjacent property owners would be willing to grant indirect access through their properties. As such, the applicant's only recourse is to seek a variance to install a driveway at the northern end of the street frontage. The proposed driveway would be 20 feet closer to the nearest driveway than what is permitted by the Development Code. Staff's opinion is that granting the variance would have a far less impact on the adjacent property owners than if they agreed to permit indirect access. 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 would render the property undevelopable because it would be cost-prohibitive to locate the driveway near the middle of the street Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 8, 2013 Page 4 � frontage. The applicant discussed the situation with Ameren and was told that relocating the power lines would cost as much as $200,000. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Finding: The proposed driveway location aligns with the intersection of Clark Avenue and Dunklin Street. This alignment would prevent turning movement conflicts, which improves safety. It could, however, pose a problem for drivers on Dunklin who are not paying attention to the fact that the street ends at Clark. The latter issue is minor and there are several ways to address it. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Finding: The applicant is faced with physical constrains that cannot be removed in a feasible manner. The variance is necessary in order to allow the property to be developed for a permitted use. Thus, the request does not undermine the general 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. Kluge to recommend approval of the variance request, subject to the conditions in the staff report. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. �,,� OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION Staff Communication Mr. Shrimplin welcomed Mr. Doug Spooler as the newest member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Spooler replaces Marcia Ritter, who recently resigned. Adiournment There being no further business, a motion was made by Mr. Maxton and seconded by Mr. Dowdy to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, R Kluge S cretary �