Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 03-13-2013 �CITY of CAPE GIRARDEAU � PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 13, 2013 Present: Trae Bertrand, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Ralph Maxton, Scott McClanahan, and Thomas J. Welch Absent: Larry Dowdy, Marcia Ritter Staff Present: Carol Peters, Ryan Shrimplin Call to Order: Chairman Bertrand called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the February 13, 2013 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Welch. � HEARINGS, DISCUSSION & VOTING 1. A public hearing was held on the request of H & S Investments, LLC to rezone Lot 3 of Winks-Nunn Subdivision on Lexington Avenue from the R-1 (Single Family Suburban Residential) District to the R-4 (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) District. Mr. Kevin Stanfield, 390 Willowbrook Bend, appeared before the Commission and explained he is requesting the rezoning to allow for construction of four townhomes on the property. The townhomes would be two or three bedroom units with one car garages. He stated there is enough room for parking of two cars in front of each unit and there would be two shared driveways on Lexington Avenue. 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. Maxton to recommend approval of the request to rezone Lot 3 Winks-Nunn Subdivision on Lexington Avenue from the R-1 (Single Family Suburban Residential) District to the R-4 (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) District. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 2. A public hearing was held on the request of Marketplace Development to rezone the northeast corner of William Street and South Ellis Street from the R-4 (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) District to the C-1 (General Commercial) District. Mr. Wy Smith, Marketplace Development, explained the rezoning is being requested for the proposed development of a Family Dollar store on the site, which is not allowed in the R-4 district. Mr. Tom Meyer, 314 North Lorimier Street, spoke in favor of the request, stating he felt retail outlets are lacking in this part of town. No one spoke in opposition to the request. Even � though the property is bordered on two sides by C-2 (Highway Commercial) zoning, Mr. Shrimplin stated Staff advised the applicant to request the C-1 district. He stated Staff believes the C-2 district is intended for major traffic corridors such as Kingshighway. The C- 1 district is more appropriate for this site due to its urban context. The staff report Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 13, 2013 Page 2 � recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Welch to recommend approval of the request to rezone the northeast corner of William Street and South Ellis Street from the R-4 (Medium Density Multifamily Residential) District to the C-1 (General Commercial) District. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 3. A public hearing was held on the request of Marketplace Development for a variance from Development Code Section 25-203 for the required number of parking spaces at the northeast corner of William Street and South Ellis Street. Mr. Wy Smith, Marketplace Development, explained that Family Dollar stores typically have a significant number of pedestrian customers; therefore their parking needs are quite low. 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 located in the urban core of the city, which is characterized by a traditional block grid pattern. These blocks contain a number of neighborhoods that are interconnected by a sidewalk system. The applicant has indicated that Family Dollar typically locates its stores near urban neighborhoods because a significant portion of its customer traffic comes from pedestrians and other non-drivers. Public sidewalks are located in front of the property along William and Ellis Streets. A bus stop is located in - front of Fred's and Save-A-Lot adjacent to the property. �,�1 Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: The application states Family Dollar's typical store only requires 30 parking spaces to accommodate its employees and customers. Presumably, this number would be higher if the store were not easily accessible to non-driving customers. If the applicant provides evidence supporting its claims, the granting of the variance would not adversely affect the adjacent 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: The applicant claims the site is not large enough for 42 parking spaces, due to the required stormwater detention area, accessible parking, loading zone, dumpster, etc. which constitutes an unnecessary hardship if the variance is denied. While this may be true of the site plan as proposed, it could be modified to gain additional parking (underground detention and compact parking are two examples). Even with such modifications, the gain in parking may not be enough to alleviate the need for the variance. Staff suggested the applicant contact the owners of the adjacent parking lots regarding a shared parking agreement. The applicant believes shared parking is not feasible in this case because Family Dollar will be a competitor to Fred's and Save-A- Lot. �jl Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 13, 2013 � Page 3 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 would benefit the public by reducing the amount of pavement on the property, thus enhancing the visual appeal of the development. As stated previously, the applicant needs to demonstrate that the proposed 32 parking spaces will be sufficient to meet the parking demands for the store; otherwise the public could be adversely affected. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Finding: Based on the information provided to date, the granting of the variance would undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Additional information would be necessary in order to justify the granting of the variance in a manner that does not undermine the Code. Mr. Shrimplin stated that the staff report had recommended approval if the applicant submitted satisfactory evidence supporting its claims, and denial if they did not. After the staff report was issued, the applicant submitted supporting documentation with trip generation figures provided by Family Dollar's Regional Vice President of Real Estate. Staff compared the figures with those of a trip generation study conducted for the Florida � Department of Transportation. Using the trip generation figures from the study, Staff estimated the actual parking demand to be slightly higher than the information provided by the applicant, however, it was still less than the proposed 32 parking spaces. Additionally, Staff conducted research on Family Dollar stores in other communities to find out if there were issues with inadequate parking. Staff did not find any issues. Based on the above findings and the additional information submitted by the applicant, Staff recommended approval of the variance request, subject to the condition that walkways connecting the store with the public sidewalks on William and Ellis Streets be installed as part of the development. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the variance request with the Staff condition. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 4. A public hearing was held on the request of Marketplace Development for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506(a) for a wall sign on a non-frontage building elevation at the northeast corner of William Street and South Ellis Street. Mr. Wy Smith, Marketplace Development, explained that Family Dollar would like to transfer the wall sign that is allowed on the west wall to the east wall which does not face a street, but is visible from Sprigg Street. 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 applicant is entitled to wall signage on the west building elevation because it faces a street. The east building elevation does not face a street and therefore is not permitted wall signage. The applicant is requesting a variance to transfer the wall Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 13, 2013 � Page 4 � signage rights from the west elevation to the east elevation. The west elevation faces homes across Ellis Street, which is not ideal for a commercial sign. The east elevation faces the Fred's/Save-A-Lot parking lot and is visible to traffic on both William and Sprigg Streets. 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 would not be adversely affected because the applicant is not seeking to gain additional signage beyond what is permitted by the Development Code. Instead, the applicant is proposing to give up the rights to wall signage on one elevation in exchange for gaining wall signage rights on a different elevation. 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 not result in an unnecessary hardship, but it would result in the wall signage being located on an elevation that faces homes on the other side of the street. This has the potential to create an adverse impact to the residents, especially if the sign is illuminated. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, �,,,,,� morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Finding: Granting of the variance would actually result in a benefit to the public because the signage would be facing a shopping center parking lot rather than the homes across Ellis Street. 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. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request, subject to the condition that the wall signage rights be transferred from the west building elevation to the east building elevation. A motion was made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Maxton to approve the variance request with the Staff condition. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 5. A public hearing was held on the request of Shane Pridmore for a variance from Development Code Section 25-202, parking spaces and aisle design at 621 Broadway. Mr. Shane Pridmore, 615 Broadway, explained the variance request is for reducing the parking � space depth from the required 19 feet to a proposed 16.5 feet. He also mentioned that instead of using parking blocks, he is proposing a curb which would allow cars to overhang Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 13, 2013 � Page 5 a portion of the two foot wide landscaping strip which would effectively extend the parking space depth beyond the 16.5 feet. Mr. Shrimplin explained to the Commission that Engineering Staff has worked with Mr. Pridmore to design the parking lot to maximize the number of parking spaces. He also clarified that the drive aisle will be the required twenty- four (24) feet to allow for proper backing and access. Mr. John Lysell, 615 Broadway, spoke in favor of the request. He stated the lot is being developed to regain some of the parking spaces that were lost due to the Broadway Corridor project. 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 originally contained a storefront building and a public alley. The building was demolished a couple of years ago, and the City recently vacated the alley. The applicant now wishes to redevelop the property for a new parking lot. Although off-street parking is not required in the CBD, any off-street parking that is provided must comply with the Development Code. Due to the width of the property, the applicant is unable to provide the required 19 foot parking space depth while maintaining a two-way drive aisle. He is proposing a parking space depth of 16.5 feet; at the end of the stall will be a landscape strip approximately 2 feet wide with a curb. The curb will allow for cars to overhang a portion of the landscape strip, which will effectively "extend" /�!� the parking space depth beyond the 16.5 feet. � � Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: The variance request is due to physical constraints that are unique to the property. The granting of the variance will allow for additional off-street parking spaces in an area where parking is at a premium. 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 require a substantial loss of parking spaces or change the drive aisle from two-way to one-way. Either change would result in a less efficient design and adversely impact the applicanYs utilization 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 variance request will not adversely affect the public because the parking spaces will still be a reasonable depth and as stated previously, the curb will allow cars to overhang, thus gaining additional depth. � Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 13, 2013 Page 6 � Finding: The variance request is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Development Code because the physical constraints of the property infringe upon the applicanYs ability to reasonably develop it for parking. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request. The Commission acknowledged that due to the lot being situated between two buildings, it was not possible to have a double row of parking at the required depth and also have a two-way drive aisle at the required width. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Maxton to approve the variance request. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 6. A public hearing was held on the request of Shane Pridmore for a variance from Development Code Section 25-804(a), plantings in the street landscaping strip at 621 Broadway. Mr. Shane Pridmore, 615 Broadway, presented his variance request and explained that per the Development Code, one tree would be required in each section of the landscaping strip. However, there are already trees in planters near the driveway as part of the Broadway Corridor project. He would like to substitute shrubs for the trees. 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 Development Code requires a 10 foot wide street landscaping strip separating the parking lot from the street. Within that strip, four categories of plantings are required (such as shade trees, ornamental trees, evergreen trees, deciduous shrubs, evergreen shrubs, grasses, flowers, and ground cover plants). Additionally, one tree is required per 50 linear feet of street frontage. In the case of the applicant's parking layout, the street landscaping strip is divided into two sections, which are separated by a 24 foot wide driveway. Each section is approximately 10 feet wide and 18.5 feet long. Per the Development Code, one tree would be required. The applicant is requesting a variance to substitute shrubs for the required tree. There are storefront buildings on both sides of the parking lot, and the driveway will be used by large trucks. These circumstances could conflict with a tree canopy at maturity. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: Granting the variance will not adversely affect the adjacent owners because the applicant is not requesting to reduce the amount of landscaping; rather, he is requesting a substitution. 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 not result in an unnecessary hardship for the � applicant, however, it could lead to conflicts with the adjacent buildings and truck traffic as stated previously. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 13, 2013 � Page 7 Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Finding: The variance request is to substitute shrubs for a tree. This substitution will have no adverse impact on the public. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Finding: The general spirit and intent of the Development Code will not be undermined because the applicant is requesting a substitution rather than a reduction in landscaping. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request, subject to the condition that the applicant submit a landscaping plan to Staff for approval. The landscaping plan shall include a mix of high and low shrubs and other plants constituting four of the categories of planting materials in Section 25-806 of the Development Code. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the variance request with the Staff condition. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 7. A public hearing was held on the request of Shane Pridmore for a variance from � Development Code Section 25-804(b), parking lot landscaping at 621 Broadway. Mr. Shane Pridmore, 615 Broadway, explained to the Commission that he is requesting a 1.1% reduction in the amount of required landscaping, from the required 15% to 13.9%. Due to the size of the lot and the property being situated befinreen the two buildings, parking spaces would have to be eliminated to meet the required 15% landscaping requirement. 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 size limitations of the property pose a challenge for incorporating parking lot landscaping while also maximizing parking. The applicant is requesting a minor reduction in the amount of parking lot landscaping (a difference of 1.1%). Although it is possible to add the 1.1% to the parking lot, it would mean losing a parking space, shortening two parking spaces that are currently 19 feet deep (which would add to the first variance request) or adding landscaping in an area that conflicts with truck turning movements from the adjoining alley. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: Visually, the reduction in landscaping area will not be noticeable. Because the � variance request is due to physical constraints that are unique to the property, it will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent owners. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 13, 2013 Page 8 � 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 require the loss of a parking space, an additional variance for the two 19 foot deep parking spaces, or cause a conflict with trucks turning from the adjoining alley. While these changes do not constitute an unnecessary hardship, none of them are desirable from a staff standpoint. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Finding: As stated previously, the granting of the variance will not create an adverse impact; in fact, it will not be noticeable. Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Finding: In requesting the variance, the applicant is attempting to avoid having to make changes to the parking layout that would not be beneficial to the public. This meets the spirit and intent of the variance process in the Development Code. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Kluge to approve the variance � request. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 8. A public hearing was held on the request of Canedy Sign & Graphics for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506(a), wall sign requirements at 170 South Kingshighway. Mr. Doug Lands, Canedy Sign & Graphics, stated that he was present to answer questions from the Commission. A staff report for the initial request 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 variance request is to allow a wall sign on the north building elevation, which does not face a street. In exchange for the additional wall sign, the applicant is proposing to forgo a second freestanding sign on the property, to which he is entitled under the Development Code. 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 because the applicant is giving up a sign to which he is entitled in exchange for a different type of sign. Additionally, the proposed wall sign has less sign area (87.5 square feet) than what the applicant would be permitted if he went with the second � freestanding sign (150 square feet per side). Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 13, 2013 � Page 9 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 additional wall 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. � Mr. Shrimplin stated that after the staff report was issued, the applicant modified his variance request as follows: In addition to requesting a wall sign on a non-frontage side of the building, a larger off-premise directional sign panel is being requested. The panel is to be located on a shared monument sign on the adjacent CVS property. Section 25-506(j)(2) of the Development Code permits off- premise directional signs not to exceed six (6) square feet in area. The applicant is requesting a twenty-eight (28) square foot panel (for a difference of twenty-two (22) square feet). In exchange for the requested variances, the applicant proposes to forgo a wall sign on the south side of the building (fronting Good Hope Street). He also proposes to limit the area of his second freestanding sign by twenty-two (22) square feet. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the modified variance request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The wall signage rights for the south building elevation shall be transferred to the north building elevation. 2. The second freestanding sign shall be limited to a sign area that is at least twenty-two (22) square feet less than the maximum permitted by the Development Code. A motion was made by Mr. Kluge and seconded by Mr. Maxton to approve the modified � variance request with the Staff conditions. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. SUBDIVISION PLATS Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 13, 2013 Page 10 � A revised condominium plat for Banterra Centre was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Shrimplin explained that a few minor revisions were made to the plat after it had been approved by the City Council. Because the revisions impact the condominium suites, the plat must be re- approved by the City Council. The staff report recommended approval of the revised condominium plat as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Maxton and seconded by Mr. Kluge to recommend approval of the revised Banterra Centre Condominium Plat as submitted. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION Mr. Robin Cole appeared before the Commission to express his concern over the time frame for mailing meeting notices to adjacent property owners. Staff indicated that the notices are mailed one week in advance of the meeting. Mr. Cole explained that the notice was mailed to the property owner listed on the tax record, who then forwarded it to him. He received the notice shortly before the meeting. Chairman Bertrand and Mr. Shrimplin responded that his concern will be taken into consideration. Staff Communication Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission that Mr. Dowdy extended his apologies for not being in attendance at the meeting. He was returning from an out-of-state trip, and encountered a delay. Mr. Shrimplin also reported that he received a call from Marcia Ritter, who offered her verbal resignation from the Commission. A replacement for Wayne Bowen will be appointed at the �,,,,,,r,� March 18, 2013 City Council meeting. A replacement for Mrs. Ritter will be appointed at a later date. Adiournment There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ran KI e Secretary �