Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 12-12-2012 �ITY Of CAPE GIRARDEAU � PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES December 12, 2012 Present: Trae Bertrand, Wayne Bowen, Larry Dowdy, Randy Kluge, Scott McClanahan, Ralph Maxton, and Thomas J. Welch Absent: William Hinckley, Marcia Ritter Staff Present: Carol Peters, Ryan Shrimplin, Marquitrice Wright Call to Order: Chairman Bertrand called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the November 14, 2012 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Bowen. � HEARINGS, DISCUSSION &VOTING 1. A public hearing was held on the request of Emad Salamy to rezone property at 1000 North Sprigg Street from the C-1 (General Commercial) District to the R-4 (Medium Density Multi- Family Residential) District. Mr. Ted Yates, representing Mr. Salamy, explained that his client would like to convert the first floor of the building from a restaurant to a three bedroom apartment unit and retain the current apartment unit on the second floor. The requested R-4 zoning is consistent with the properties to the east and south. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. The staff report recommended approval. A motion was made by Mr. Bowen and seconded by Mr. Maxton to recommend approval of the request to rezone the property at 1000 North Sprigg Street from the C-1 (General Commercial) District to the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 2. A public hearing was held on the request of S & S Rental Properties, LLC to rezone property at 200 Morgan Oak Street from the C-1 (General Commercial) District to the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District. Mr. Brad Schlosser, S & S Rental Properties, LLC explained he is converting the former motel into apartments. He indicated there will be sixteen (16) two or three bedroom units, which will likely be rented to students. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to the request. The staff report recommended approval. The requested R-4 zoning is consistent with that of the adjacent properties to the north, east, and south. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to recommend approval of the request to rezone property at 200 Morgan Oak Street from the C-1 (General Commercial) District to the R-4 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) � District. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 3. A public hearing was held on the request of Drury Development Corporation for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506 for a freestanding sign which exceeds the sign Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2012 Page 2 � height and size regulations at 270 Shirley Drive. Mr. Mark Kohl, Drury Development Corporation, explained the variance request is for a sign that is higher and larger than what is allowed in the code, but consistent with other signs in the area. He indicated the request is to allow an 87 foot high pylon sign with a 270 square foot sign panel for Academy Sports as well as an additional 270 square foot panel for a future tenant on the adjacent vacant lot to the south. However, the sign panel for the adjacent lot would not be installed at this time. Mr. Shrimplin explained that per City Code, a variance is valid for a period of one hundred eighty (180) days; work must commence within that time period or the variance expires. Because the second sign panel would not be installed at this time, the applicant has requested that the time frame be waived. Also, the code prohibits off-premise signs, so the applicant has requested the off-premise second sign panel be allowed as part of the variance request. He also mentioned that the applicant has agreed to forgo placing a freestanding sign on the adjacent property, assuming that property is developed for a single tenant. 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 application states that the variance is needed due to the location of the property relative to the major thoroughfares (Interstate 55, Route K and Siemers Drive). Staff does believe that the subject property has limitations with regard to visibility from these streets. This condition, however, is not unique to the subject property. The adjacent �,,,,/� developments, including Kohl's and Sam's Club, are also limited in this respect. Criterion #2: The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. Finding: The granting of the variance will adversely affect the adjacent property owners and tenants unless the applicant agrees to forgo the rights to a freestanding sign on the adjacent vacant property to the south. In this case, the applicant would be gaining a higher, larger sign that is intended for two properties in lieu of having two separate freestanding signs, one on each property. 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 constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the subject property. Per the Development Code, the subject property and the adjacent vacant property are each afforded a freestanding sign as well as wall signage which, although limited in visibility, still provide the ability to identify and advertise tenants. Criterion #4: The requested variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Finding: If the applicant agrees to forgo the rights to a freestanding sign on the adjacent �,,,,,� vacant property, the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the public. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2012 � Page 3 Criterion #5: Granting the requested variance will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Finding: Staff believes that forgoing the rights to a freestanding sign on the adjacent vacant property to the south in exchange for the requested variance is equitable and will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request subject to the condition that the applicant forgo the rights to a freestanding sign for the adjacent vacant property to the south. A motion was made by Mr. Bowen and seconded by Mr. Kluge to approve the variance request with the Staff condition. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 4. A public hearing was held on the request of Vernon E. Rhodes Family Partners, LLLP for a variance from Development Code Section 25-506 for a freestanding sign which exceeds the sign size regulations at 1650 North Kingshighway. Mr. Doug Lands, Canedy Sign Company, explained the request is to allow a 254 square foot illuminated multi-tenant freestanding sign. Per the code, the property is allowed a freestanding sign along both public streets (Kingshighway and Kingsway). The applicant has agreed to forgo a sign on Kingsway to allow for a larger sign along Kingshighway. Mr. Bowen noted that with the elimination of the second freestanding sign, the overall sign square footage on the property is forty-six square feet less than what would otherwise be allowed. Mr. McClanahan stated that when the � Planning Commission and Staff were working on the Development Code, the maximum sign area of 150 square feet was based on line-of-sight issues. He noted there are no concerns with line-of-sight with respect to this sign. 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 application states that the variance is needed due to the location of the subject property on a street with high driving speeds. Kingshighway is a state highway with a wide right-of-way and a 50 mph speed limit. Staff agrees with the applicant that the high driving speeds make it challenging to read a 150 square foot sign from a distance, especially multi- tenant signs. This condition, however, is not 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 adjacent properties are owned by the applicant, the City, and Union Electric Company (Ameren). As such, Staff does not believe the granting of the variance will adversely affects the rights of 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. Planning 8� Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2012 Page 4 � Finding: Denial of the variance will not constitute an unnecessary hardship upon the utilization of the subject property. The property has frontage on two public streets (Kingshighway and Kingsway). Per Section 25-506(b), each frontage is afforded a freestanding sign in accordance with Table 2. In addition to the two freestanding signs, the property is also afforded wall signs per Section 25-506(a). 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 confer upon the applicant a special privilege that is not extended to other property owners with similar circumstances. If, however, the applicant agrees to forgo the rights to a second freestanding sign for the subject property, the granting of the variance will not result in a special privilege, but rather an exchange that effectively transfers allowable sign area from the second freestanding sign to the first freestanding sign. In this case, 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: Staff believes that exchanging the rights to a second freestanding sign for additional sign area on the first freestanding sign is equitable and will not undermine the general spirit and intent of the Development Code. Based on the above findings, Staff recommended approval of the variance request subject � to the condition that the applicant forgo the rights to a second freestanding sign for the subject property. A motion was made by Mr. Bowen and seconded by Mr. McClanahan to approve the variance request with the Staff condition. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. SUBDIVISION PLATS 5. A record plat for Banterra Centre was reviewed by the Commission. The plat combines the current lot with a strip of land that was purchased from the City in 2011. The plat also establishes condominium units on each floor of the building, which is under construction. Mr. Chris Bowen, Bowen Engineering, appeared before the Commission to further explain the plat. He explained that typically a condominium plat is not completed until the building is framed up so the dimensions of the condominium units are exact. Mr. Shrimplin stated that Staff has some questions regarding the condominium as it pertains to the building, fire, and development codes. Staff will be meeting with the applicant to discuss these issues. Mr. Maxton questioned if the parking requirements will be a concern with individual tenants occupying the space. Mr. Shrimplin responded by stating that the parking requirements were calculated based on a percentage of the building being utilized for office space and another percentage for a restaurant. If this ratio of use types changes in the future, then the parking will be checked at that time. The staff report recommended approval of the record plat with the following conditions: 1) The approval of this plat is contingent upon the applicant complying with all statutory and code requirements arising from the establishment of condominium units, and 2) The Subdivision Dedication references a Document Number for restrictions that are set out in a separate instrument. The separate instrument shall be � recorded and the Document Number added to the plat prior to its recording. A motion was made by Mr. Dowdy and seconded by Mr. Kluge to recommend approval of the Banterra Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 2012 � Page 5 Centre Record Plat with the Staff conditions. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 6. A record plat for Plaza Tire Service was reviewed by the Commission. The plat re- subdivides into three (3) lots a group of parcels and the Linda Street right-of-way, which the City has agreed to vacate and convey to the applicant via a pair of Quit Claim Deeds. The right-of-way will be replaced by a forty (40) foot wide sewer and utility easement. Mr. Scott Rhodes, Plaza Tire Service, Inc. informed the Commission that as a part of the plat, he is requesting a variance to reduce the front yard along Good Hope Street from 25 feet to 20 feet on Lot 2. Mr. Shrimplin added that the applicant has agreed to apply for a rezoning for a portion of Lot 2 to change from the M-1 zoning district to the C-2 zoning district to be consistent with the rest of the lot. Staff recommended approval of the record plat with the following condition: 1) The Subdivision Dedication references a Document Number for restrictions that are set out in a separate instrument. The separate instrument shall be recorded and the Document Number added to the plat prior to its recording. A motion was made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Bowen to recommend approval of the Plaza Tire Service Record Plat with the Staff condition. The motion passed with a vote of 7 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 7. A record plat for Resubdivision of Lots 69, 70, 71, 72, and 73 of Walden Park Phase 2 - Amended was reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Welch stated he will be abstaining from this agenda item due to his interest in purchasing one of the lots. Mr. Geoff Park presented the � request on behalf of Missouri State Bank. The record plat re-subdivides five (5) lots into four (4) lots in the Walden Park Planned Development District. Mr. Shrimplin stated that Staff verified there are no City utilities in the easements to be eliminated. Staff also verified the new lot configurations will not result in water and sewer lateral encroachments upon adjacent lots. The staff report recommended approval of the plat as submitted. A motion was made by Mr. Bowen and seconded by Mr. Maxton to recommend approval of the Resubdivision of Lots 69, 70, 71, 72, and 73 of Walden Park Phase 2 - Amended Record Plat. The motion passed with a vote of 6 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 1 abstaining. OTHER ITEMS AND COMMUNICATION Staff Communication Mr. Shrimplin introduced Marquitrice Wright to the Commission. Ms. Wright was recently hired as a Planner I to replace Martha Brown, who retired in July. Adiournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully ub �tted, (� Ra Kluge Secretary