Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 04-10-2013 CITY of CAPE GIRARDEAU � PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 10, 2013 Present: Trae Bertrand, Jeff Glenn, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Ralph Maxton, Scott McClanahan, and Thomas J. Welch Absent: Larry Dowdy 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 March 13, 2013 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Maxton. Chairman Bertrand introduced Mr. Jeff Glenn as the newest member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Glenn is filling the seat vacated by Wayne Bowen, who now serves on � the City Council. Mr. Stan Polivick, Stormwater Coordinator for the City of Cape Girardeau, presented the 2013 - 2018 Stormwater Management Plan to the Commission. He explained that the City received its first MS4 permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 2003 for water quality and pollution control. The 2013-2018 Stormwater Management Plan details how the City will continue its efforts to ensure water quality and pollution control over the next five years. He reported that feedback from developers regarding the regulations has been mostly positive, but all of them have acknowledged that the regulations result in additional development costs. HEARINGS, DISCUSSION & VOTING 1. A public hearing was held on the request of Duncan Property Management, LLC for a variance from Development Code Section 25-805, bufferyard requirements at 2820 Wintergreen Drive. Mr. Lindon Duncan, property owner, explained an office/warehouse development is proposed on the property, which is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing/Industrial District). The property is adjacent to a nursing home, which is zoned R-1 (Single-Family Suburban Residential District). The nursing home property slopes up from his property, and there are several existing mature trees located along the nursing home side of the property line. Because the nursing home property is at a higher elevation than his property, installing a bufferyard right against the property line would be ineffective. Additionally, his property is very long, and installing a bufferyard along the entire property line would be cost prohibitive. He is requesting the variance to allow the bufferyard to be located at the back of the actual development rather than the property line. He is also � seeking approval to only install the bufferyard along the development rather than the entire _ property line. 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: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2013 Page 2 � 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 an unusual shape. It is very long and narrow. The rear property line, which is adjacent to an R-1 zoned property, is over 800 feet in length. The proposed warehouse development will only occupy a fraction of this length. For this reason, the applicant is seeking a variance to allow him to install a bufferyard that spans the length of the actual development area rather than the entire property. He is also proposing to move the bufferyard away from the rear property line and immediately adjacent to the development because the R-1 zoned property is at a higher elevation. By moving the bufferyard next to the development, the applicant hopes to achieve a more effective screen. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: Granting the variance would not adversely affect the rights of adjacent owners or residents because the actual development area would be screened by the proposed bufferyard. The areas beyond the bufferyard are not proposed to be developed at this time. Expansion or additional development on the subject property would necessitate additional bufferyard(s). 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: The bufferyard regulations include requirements for plantings as well as a solid barrier. Denial of the variance would result in a hardship for the applicant because the cost of installing the plantings and barrier along the entire rear lot line would be disproportionate to the cost of constructing the building and other improvements. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Finding: The proposed development primarily impacts the R-1 zoned property. The proposed bufferyard would effectively screen the development from the R-1 property, therefore granting the variance would 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 unique characteristics of the subject property and the hardship that would result if the variance were denied are both justifications for granting the variance under the provisions of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request, subject � to the conditions that the bufferyard shall comply with all other provisions of the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2013 Page 3 � Development Code, and any expansion or additional development on the subject property shall require additional bufferyard(s) in the same manner as the bufferyard approved by this variance. A motion was made by Mr. Maxton 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 0 abstaining. SUBDIVISION PLATS 2. A record plat for Family Dollar-Marketplace Subdivision was reviewed by the Commission. The plat shows five parcels being combined into one lot at the northeast corner of William Street and South Ellis Street. Mr. Wise Smith, Marketplace Development, was in attendance to answer any questions from the Commission. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to recommend approval of the Family Dollar-Marketplace Subdivision Record Plat as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 3. A record plat for Baldwin Place Phase II was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Ty Gramling, Koehler Engineering, explained the plat is for property located on Baldwin Drive and is the next phase in an existing duplex development. Mr. Shrimplin stated that most of the subdivision is appropriately zoned R-3 (High Density Single-Family Residential District), but a small portion is zoned C-2 (Highway Commercial District). The C-2 portion needs to be rezoned to R-3 in order to bring the entire subdivision under a single zoning district. A motion was made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Glenn to recommend approval � of the Baldwin Place Phase II Record Plat as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 4. A record plat for Lots P19, P20 & P21 of the Lochs at Dalhousie - Corrected Amended was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Ty Gramling, Koehler Engineering, explained that the plat has been submitted in order to combine common ground area with three adjacent single- family lots. Mr. Shrimplin explained that the staff report recommended approval, subject to several conditions that were listed in the staff review letter. After the staff report was issued, the applicant submitted a corrected plat. He presented the Commission with a staff report addendum. Most of the issues were resolved, however some comments still remain. He indicated that deeds transferring the common ground area to the individual property owners would be need to be recorded before the plat could be presented to the City Council. A motion was made by Mr. Glenn and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to recommend approval of the Lots P19, P20 & P21 of the Lochs at Dalhousie - Corrected Amended Record Plat, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report addendum. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION Staff Communication Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that Wayne Bowen was elected to the City Council. His first meeting is on April 15, 2013. � Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that the next meeting of the Comprehensive Plan ' Oversight Committee will be held on April 23, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. in the Penzel Conference Room at the Cape Girardeau Public Library. Mr. Shrimplin explained the purpose of the committee, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 10, 2013 Page 4 and asked the Commission to appoint a representative to replace Marcia Ritter. Mr. � McClanahan agreed to serve on the committee along with Mr. Hinckley and Mr. Bertrand as the Planning and Zoning Commission representatives. Mr. Shrimplin gave an update on the Southeast Metropolitan Planning Organization (SEMPO). He explained that per federal law, every urbanized area with a population greater than 50,000, as determined by the U.S. Census, is required to designate a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) consisting of local, state, and federal government and transportation authorities. As of the 2010 Census, the Cape Girardeau-Jackson urbanized area had a population greater than 50,000 and therefore must create a new MPO. The MPO has been named the Southeast Metropolitan Planning Organization (SEMPO). The group will administer transportation planning activities for the area within the MPO boundary, and coordinate transportation projects that receive federal funding. Mr. Glenn added that the MPO will assume some responsibilities that were being handled by the Southeast Missouri Regional Planning Commission. Adiournment There being no further business, a motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Welch to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submi , � Ran ge Secretary �..�