Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning & Zoning Commission Minutes 04-11-2012 CITY Of CAPE GIRARDEAU PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES April 11, 2012 Present: Trae Bertrand, Wayne Bowen, William Hinckley, Randy Kluge, Ralph Maxton, Scott McClanahan, Marcia Ritter and Thomas J. Welch Absent: Raymond Buhs Staff Present: Kelly Green, Carol Peters and Ryan Shrimplin Call to Order: Chairman Bertrand called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the March 14, 2012 meeting were unanimously approved upon motion made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Welch. Public Hearinqs 1. A Public Hearing was held on two variance requests from Sec. 25-506 of the Development Code for the property at 535 Siemers Drive. The requests were to � construct a pylon freestanding sign and electronic message board which exceed the maximum sizes allowed. Mr. Tom O'Neil, representing the applicant Menard, Inc., explained to the Commission that variances were granted last year to allow the construction of a 400 sq. ft. sign, including a 67 sq. ft. electronic message board. He indicated that the store will be opening in about a month and the sign currently installed on site was inadvertently built smaller than the variance allowed. The sign currently on site is only 150 sq. ft with a 67 sq. ft. electronic message board, which he indicated is difficult to read from Interstate 55. Menard's is requesting a sign with a total area of 700 sq. ft., including a 300 sq. ft. electronic message board. Mr. O'Neil indicated that the message board is readable from Siemers Drive, but that it also needs to be visible from the interstate to attract regional customers to the new store. Mr. Bowen questioned what has changed since their original variance request that would cause the need for a larger sign. Mr. O'Neil responded that the current sign doesn't establish the presence on the interstate that was intended. No one spoke in favor of or opposition to this request. Mr. Hinckley commented that the Commission and staff worked hard to develop sign regulations so that the sizes and types of signs could be controlled. Mr. Kluge stated he felt the size of a sign should be proportionate to the size of the building and didn't feel the request was out of line considering the size of the building. He also mentioned that part of the Commission's role is to promote new industry and draw more customers to the area, and having a sign large enough to be readable from the interstate would help. Mr. Welch expressed concerns about drivers attempting to read a scrolling electronic message while driving on the interstate. Mr. Bowen commented that signage is only one part of a marketing campaign, and felt the City had been generous in granting the current variances. Mr. Shrimplin informed the Commission of staff's research into sign variances and permits allowed for other signs in the area, and noted that the current � variances granted to Menard's allow them to construct one of the largest signs in the vicinity. A motion was made by Mr. Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Kluge, to approve the variance request to increase the total sign area to 700 sq. ft. The motion failed with a vote of 2 in favor, 6 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. A second motion was made by Mr. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 Page 2 � Hinckley and seconded by Mr. Kluge, to approve the variance request to increase the electronic message sign area to 300 sq. ft. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 2. A Public Hearing was held on a variance request from Sec. 25-506 of the Development Code for the property at 2527 William Street. The request was to add a wall sign on a side of the building without street frontage. Mr. Daniel Finch presented the variance request on behalf of the applicant, First State Community Bank. He explained the bank would like to add signage to the south side of the building which does not have any street frontage, so those traveling north on Broadview Street can identify the building before reaching the entrance. He indicated the bank did not have any objections to the staff report's recommendation that the allowable sign area on the east side of the building, which faces a street, be transferred to the south side of the building. No one spoke in favor of or opposition to this request. A motion was made by Mr. Maxton and seconded by Mr. McClanahan, to approve the variance request to install wall signage on the south side of the building, with the condition that the maximum wall sign area permitted for the east building elevation be transferred to the south building elevation. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 3. A Public Hearing was held on a variance request from Section 25-506 of the Development Code for the property at the southwest corner of LaSalle Avenue and Baldwin Drive. The request was to place an off-premise directional sign inside the city limits for a property located outside the city limits. Vicki Lantz, 2763 County Road 618, � presented her request to the Commission. She stated she owns Lazy L Safari Park and is having problems getting people to her location. She would like to place a sign at the southwest corner of LaSalle Avenue and Baldwin Drive to direct travelers to her location on County Road 618. Mr. Hinckley questioned why the regulations don't allow directional signs for areas outside the city limits. Mrs. Green explained the intent is to prevent the cluttering of signs in the city for locations which are not in the city. No one spoke in favor of or opposition to this request. A motion was made by Mr. Bowen and seconded by Mr. Welch, to approve the variance request to place an off-premise directional sign inside the city limits for a property located outside the city limits. The motion passed with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. 4. A Public Hearing was held on the recommended zoning of several properties that are proposed to be annexed into the city limits. Mr. Shrimplin explained that a group of annexation petitions were accepted by the City Council on March 19, 2012. If annexed, each of these properties must be assigned a City zoning district. Mr. Bertrand explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission's charge is to make a recommendation on the proposed zoning districts to the City Council. The Commission is not empowered to recommend as to whether or not a particular property should be annexed. He also stated there would be a Public Hearing at the City Council meeting on April 16, 2012 for anyone who would like to comment on the proposed annexations and zoning districts. Mr. Mike Ingram, 136 Oak Glenn, representing the Whispering Oaks Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition to the zoning recommendation of M-1 (Light Manufacturing/Industrial) for the property at 436 Quapaw Lane. He also asked for clarification on how long an annexation petition is valid. Mrs. Green explained that the City recently implemented a new system, which requires an executed annexation � petition and agreement to be recorded at the County. By having them recorded, they run with the land and do not expire. Mr. Shrimplin explained that the current use of the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes � April 11, 2012 Page 3 property at 436 Quapaw is light industrial, which is permitted by right in the M-1 district. He also explained that should the property be annexed and placed in a City zoning district, the community would gain some safeguards due to the regulations that would have to be followed, such as bufferyard requirements and restricted uses. Presently, because the property is under County jurisdiction, there are no regulations limiting the use or development of the property. Mr. Ingram recommended the property be zoned as R-1, which would make the existing use legally non-conforming, so that it would revert back to residential if the non-conforming status were to expire. A question was raised about the possibility of zoning the property R-1 and granting a Special Use Permit to allow the light industrial use. Mr. Shrimplin explained that the new Zoning Ordinance does not allow this type of use in an R-1 district, even as a special use. There was some discussion on the future land use recommendation of Large Lot/Estate for that area. Mrs. Green explained this development was done in the County, but had the property been inside the city limits, it probably would not have been allowed to be built at that location. Mr. Michael Barnes, 405 Monterra, also spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning of 436 Quapaw Lane. He mentioned that the annexation petition was executed in 2006, and nothing had been done about it until now. He was concerned that the City does not have on file a site plan for the property, nor anything in writing stating what the property is being used for. Mrs. Green explained that a site plan is only required for a proposed development. Since the property is already developed with an existing building, a site plan would only be required if there were changes proposed to � the property after it has been annexed. Mr. Michael Buchanan, 221 Brandy Lane, was not in favor of or opposition to the proposed zoning for his property, but questioned if he would be allowed to keep his horses on the property after the annexation. Mr. Shrimplin explained that the property would be grandfathered and the use would be allowed to continue, even if sold, unless the use ceased for a period of 274 consecutive days. Mr. Chris Jung, 151 Willow Bend, also questioned the ability to have horses or livestock on his property. He currently doesn't have any animals but did in the past and wanted to keep that option open. Mr. Shrimplin recommended changing the proposed zoning classification for both lots to RE (Rural Estate Residential), which allows a hobby farm by right, subject to certain parameters. Mr. Roger Austin, 121 & 135 LaSalle Street, spoke to the Commission in reference to concerns about annexing part of the LaCroix Industrial Park and zoning it as M-1. Mr. Shrimplin informed Mr. Austin that his property had been removed from the current group of properties proposed to be annexed. Mr. Austin stated that if his property is annexed in the future, he would prefer the C-2 (Highway Commercial) district. He also had concerns about the possibility of being disconnected from City sanitary sewer service, since he and his neighbors paid to extend the main back in 2007. He indicated that they had requested to make the sewer private at the time the annexation petitions were signed. They were informed by the City that the sewer must be public. Mr. Brian McAllister, 166 LaSalle Street, General Manager of ServPro of Scott County, mentioned he spoke with Casey Brunke, City Engineer, who told him there is no ordinance that provides for the reimbursement of the parties who paid for the sewer extension when others connect to it. Mr. McAllister was concerned with which zoning district would be appropriate for his facility and how it would affect the property value in the future if the owners ever decided to sell the property. Mr. Shrimplin reminded him that a property owner can request a rezoning at any time. There being no other � discussion regarding the zoning of properties proposed to be annexed, the Planning and Zoning Commission, via motion made by Mr. McClanahan and seconded by Mr. Bowen, voted to recommend approval of the proposed zoning districts as presented except for Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes April 11, 2012 Page 4 � changing the recommended zoning for 151 Willow Bend and 221 Brandy Lane to the RE (Rural Estate) district, with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. Subdivision Plats 1. A revised record plat for Independence Village Subdivision was presented to the Commission for their consideration. Mr. Scott Richards, Richards Land Surveying, and the property owner, Dr. Michael Jessup, appeared before the Commission. Dr. Jessup indicated he no longer intends to split an existing building between Lots 1 and 8, which would have required a firewall and separate water and sanitary sewer services. Also, Dr. Jessup questioned the staff recommendation of showing the southern portion of Lot 4 as a separate lot in order to allow his existing fence. Mr. Shrimplin stated that based on staff's research, the lot already exists. If the lot line is not shown, then a new variance application for the entire fence would be necessary. Dr. Jessup requested that the agenda item for the record plat be tabled to allow time to revise the drawing and address these issues. A motion was made by Mr. Bowen and seconded by Mr. Hinckley, to table the Independence Village Subdivision Record Plat until such time that further revisions are submitted, with a vote of 8 in favor, 0 in opposition, and 0 abstaining. Other Items and Communication Staff Communication 1. Mr. Shrimplin updated the Commission on the status of the proposed amendment to the � Zoning Ordinance regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness approval process, and the rezoning and Special Use Permit request at 2017 Perryville Road. Both items are on the agenda for 2"d and 3�d readings at the City Council meeting on April 16, 2012. 2. Mrs. Green informed the Commission that work has begun on the Broadway Corridor project, which is the first TTF-4 project to start construction. Adjournment Upon motion made by Mr. Bowen and seconded by Mr. Bertrand, the meeting was adjourned unanimously at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully sub � d, Ran ge Secretary �