Meetings and Agendas
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 6, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments
Under Old Business
2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier
Rezoning Page 2-9Under New Business
365 North Highway 67
GMT Auto Page 9-11Miscellaneous Business
Historic Business District Page 11
Florissant Masonry Ordinance Page 11-13
The Olympic Page 13
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall, on Monday, August 6, 2007 at 7:00 p.m., with Michael Meyer presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Michael Meyer, Jack Gallagher, Ron Goodhart, Jane Boyle, Daniel Call, Dick Weller and Jim Ross. Also present was Deborah Carter, Court Reporter and John Morgan, Building Commissioner.
A quorum being present the Chair declared the Planning and Zoning Commission was in session for the transaction of business.
Michael Meyer stated that the next order of business would be approval of the minutes for July 16, 2007. Michael Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Jack Gallagher. All parties concur. Motion carried.OLD BUSINESS:
Item 1 2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier
PZ071607-1 RDD Design Development
CONTINUED - Ward 2
Request Approval for a Residential
Designed Development (RDD) to Allow
for the Construction of 18 Single
Family Detached Dwellings. Zoned R-3.The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, 2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier. Request approval to for a Residential Designed Development (RDD), to allow for the construction of 18 single family detached dwellings. Zoned R-3.
Steve Rush of Site Development Engineering and Greg Rowles, appeared before the Commission and presented a Powerpoint presentation on the revisions to the proposed development; Park Side Estates.
Site Plan: The proposed area is located adjacent to Koch Park and Shop N Save and sits approximately 1200 feet northwest of Howdershell and Shackelford. The tract of land consists of 4.734 acres.
The proposed R-4 Residential Design Development zoning provides for 5,000 square foot
lots. The allowable yield for 4.734 acres under the current R-3 Zoning is twenty (20) lots; the allowable yield for the proposed R-4 Zoning is thirty-two (32) lots. The petition as presented, is for eighteen (18) villas, with a density of 7,044 square feet per lot.
RDD Characteristics: The site contains two hardship areas, a 100 foot setback which prohibits building and a creek, where an 8 X 5 box culvert will be constructed. This area consists of approximately 1.84 acres.
Building Characteristics: Villas will range from 1674 to 2500 square feet. The lot width is 52 feet wide, with a 6 foot side yard setback. The price range is from two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) to two hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars ($275.000.00).
The maintenance-free exterior is included in the Homeowner's Association Fee.
Revisions: (1) The entrance has been moved to the southeast to coincide with the entrance to Koch Park. (2) Berms and swales have been added to the rear of the lots located on the southeast corner of the property to ensure that the stormwater from the site does not encroach upon adjacent properties. (3) Note 6 has been amended to assert that the Petitioner will comply with City, MSD and DNR regulations. (4) The design and location of the monument sign were provided on the presentation. (5) With regard to the installation of a fence at the top of the culvert, the Petitioner's opinion is that the fence is not essential and would only create an eyesore. (6) 1 foot berms will be installed along the property line to provide separation between existing property owners and the proposed development. (7) A double swale has been installed on the west side of the property and the swales located on the neighboring property have been removed. (8) The easement reveals that the 100 foot building line is located on eight homesites in an area called Charbonier Acres, which was established on September 6, 1954.Michael Meyer advised the Petitioner that the installation of a fence at the top of the culvert was reviewed based on the health, safety and welfare of the community, and in his opinion, the 10 foot elevation difference from the bottom of the creek to the sidewalk creates a safety issue that must be addressed. Mr. Rowles advised Mr. Meyer that the drop-off for the culvert will be diminished because of the sloped grading, although he is not opposed to installing a piece of fencing at the bottom of the culvert. Mr. Meyer stated that his concern is that this type of elevation could present a danger, especially for children walking or playing in the area.
Mr. Meyer asked the Building Commissioner's Office to pay close attention to the additional berms and swales that are being developed to address stormwater drainage to ensure that the design meets its intended purpose.
Mr. Meyer asked whether any additional landscaping would be installed with the separation berms? Mr. Rowles stated that there would be additional shrubbery, but no fencing. Mr. Meyer asked the Petitioner if they had developed a landscaping plan for the berms, since typically berms used to separate commercial from residential are 3 to 4 feet high, with plantings on the top and front? Mr. Rowles stated that cluster landscaping would be planted throughout the rear yards located along the bermed area.
Mr. Meyer asked if the 100 foot setback is considered a legal right-of-way? Mr. Morgan stated that it is considered an easement rather than a right-of-way. Mr. Rowles informed Mr. Morgan that it was a 100 foot subdivision setback and not an easement. Mr. Meyer asked if the setback could be revised if all parties agreed to do so? Mr. Morgan stated that a subdivision plat requesting such action could be submitted, as long as it is signed by all of the owners. Mr. Meyer asked if the setback could be partially modified? Mr. Morgan stated that he could not answer that question, although, it is probably contained within the subdivision indentures.
Mr. Rowles stated that Shop N Save did make an attempt to get all homeowners to make such a modification, however objections were filed that resulted in a lawsuit and ultimate payouts to residents.
Michael Meyer asked the Petitioner if he had contacted the owners to determine if they were willing to reduce the 100 foot setback to the City's current standard of 30 feet? Mr. Rowles stated that he was informed that he would be wasting his time because of their experience with Shop N Save.
Michael Meyer asked Mr. Morgan if he would present the facts to Mr. Hessel for his opinion on the matter.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the berm only covered lots 8, 9 and 10? Mr. Rush stated that the berm would run from lots 1 through 12. Mr. Ross asked if there would be a retaining wall from lots 12 through 18? Mr. Rush stated that that was correct. Mr. Ross asked if the berm could be increased to 3 feet as opposed to 1 foot? Mr. Ross stated that from an engineering standpoint they are limited in certain areas, because at some point when you get higher than 1 foot you have to double swale the area to make it work, which is financially unfeasible. Mr. Rowles added that there is not enough dirt from the site to make the berms any higher.
Mr. Ross asked if there were specific requirements for the installation of fencing by homeowners? Mr. Rowles stated that typically, only maintenance-free fencing is allowed, which includes vinyl, aluminum or wrought iron. However, only one color is allowed.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Meyer why the Commission should be concerned about a modification of the 100 foot setback? Mr. Meyer stated that the concern would be that if that could become useable space some of the lots within the development could be expanded to conform with the lot sizes for an R-3.
Jane Boyle concurred with the Chair's recommendation that screening be installed around the detention pond. Ms. Boyle questioned whether the Commission would have the opportunity to review the landscaping proposed for the bermed areas? Mr. Morgan stated that the Petitioner would have to come back with a final plan to be approved by the Commission.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if the rear elevation for the floor plans illustrating a second floor would differentiate from the other units? Mr. Rowles stated that while the front elevations will be uniform, the elevation for the rear of the homes opting for an additional second floor will deviate.
Ron Goodhart questioned whether it was accurate to assume that MSD is the entity responsible for ensuring that stormwater drainage is installed correctly? Mr. Rowles stated that that is correct and the Petitioner must post a bond with MSD prior to the commencement of construction. This bond is retained by MSD until the project meets their approval.
Dick Weller asked whether MSD would have the final say as opposed to the City of Florissant? Mr. Meyer stated that although the City must make regular reports to MSD, MSD does have the final say.
Mr. Weller asked if the Fire Department could be satisfied with the construction of one cul-de-sac, wherein the center island could be eliminated? Mr. Morgan stated that the Fire Department is only concerned about the end cul-de sac.
Mr. Rowles explained that the center island is necessary to allow for an additional homesite within that area, without wasting ground.
Michael Meyer asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner?Resident Ben Bull Sr., of 2435 Charbonier appeared before the Commission and reiterated his concern that the development did not fit within the R-3 and non-urban character of the neighborhood.
Resident Bonnie Hickman, of 2275 Charbonier, appeared before the Commission and stated that while market research may illustrate that there is a need for this type of development, if the current residents were unhappy with the size of their property there would be eight for sale signs, but that is not the case.
Ms. Hickman informed the Petitioner that the barbed-wire fence previously referred to had been removed in February of 2006. She also expressed concerns with the 10 foot electric company easement and the electric company's ability to access the substations once the development is built and the fact that today, people cut through their property to get to the park or Shop N Save. Therefore, she would respectfully request that a fence be installed to protect her property from being considered as common ground.
Resident Ben Bull, Jr., of 2435 Charbonier appeared before the Commission and suggested that the Petitioner consider tearing down his father's house to enlarge the lots instead of transferring his hardship onto the current residents.
Resident Jerry Petti, of #4 Starkway, appeared before the Commission and concurred with the comments made by Mr. Ben Bull, Jr., because the Petitioner seems to be forcing these 18 homes into this small plot of land.
Mr. Petti expressed a concern with stormwater drainage and stated that currently he gets 1 to 2 feet of water in his backyard during heavy rains, as well as his concerns regarding access for the electric company; excessive power outages and the proposed 6 foot setbacks.Michael Meyer explained that the RDD was designed to assist developers in developing difficult property and that is was a part of the City's Zoning Code. Therefore, a Petitioner is allowed to submit such a request.
John Morgan advised Mr. Petti that the City's Zoning Code allows for a 6 foot side yard setback.
Michael Meyer also stated that in his opinion, the Petitioner seems to have done a good job of berming the property and locating storm catch basins in the rear yards, such that he should see a lot less water generated from this development.
Mr. Petti stated that currently there is a creek behind Shop N Save that was signed off on by the City and MSD however, it is a mess. He stated that his problem is that residents keep coming to the City regarding these issues, only to see more development, more impact on their environment and no improvements.
Resident Julie Derby, of 576 Talon Court appeared before the Commission and suggested that if the backyard of the Rowles residence, which is approximately 100 feet, could be cut in half and moved 20 feet towards the left, then perhaps, the back yards of the homesites located in front of the cul-de-sac could be extended beyond 15 feet and eliminate the need for rezoning.
Ms. Derby then questioned whether the existing 4 foot chain-link fence would be replaced with maintenance-free fencing?
Resident Steve Blumfelder, of 2395 Charbonier appeared before the Commission and stated that he was having a difficult time determining the distance of this new development from his property line and questioned whether it would be possible for him to obtain a copy of the development plans?Michael Meyer advised Mr. Blumfelder that the development would be approximately 6 feet from his property line. Mr. Blumfelder stated that the handbook that he had been provided by the City stated that the allowable distance was 8 feet rather than 6 feet.
John Morgan stated that the distance had been changed to 6 feet approximately three years ago.
Mr. Blumfelder asked if the retaining wall would be located on his property line?
Michael Meyer stated that it would be located on the Petitioner's side of the property line. Mr. Blumfelder asked if the retaining wall would obstruct the flow of water and create an additional pool of water on his property? Based on the illustrated contours, Mr. Meyer questioned the location of standing water within Mr. Blumfelder's backyard? Mr. Blumfelder stated that while the contours do assist in draining the water in between the two existing homes, it is very gradual. So if the water sheds down from the north to the south and hits the wall, one could surmise that it would create a big puddle in his fields.
Mr. Blumfelder also expressed a concern with the lack of fencing to protect the existing neighbors' privacy.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Blumfelder if he currently owned the property designated on the plans as the Pezold property? Mr. Blumfelder stated that he has owned the property for a year. Mr. Meyer asked that the plans be corrected to reflect the correct owner.Mr. Rowles responded to the following issues addressed by residents:
Neighborhood Demographics: Mr. Rowles stated that the complexion of the neighborhood changed with the addition of Shop N Save, which makes it more appealing for this type of a development. Market research has indicated that this type of development is something that is needed in this area.
Electrical Easement: The 25 foot rear yard requirement is a Florissant requirement and has nothing to do with the easement.
Stormwater Drainage: In most situations, the creation of a detention system, which manages the water, improves the stormwater situation within the surrounding areas. All drainage systems must be approved by MSD.
Fencing: This is the exact situation with Lowery Estates, where backyards back up to one property owner with no fence and no berm. To date, there have not been any complaints pertaining to invasion of privacy. Berms and landscaping will be installed on this development to establish property lines and add to the value of the property.
Rowles Homesite: Removal of the homesite will not generate an area wide enough to make a significant impact.
Retaining Wall: The Pezold property did have a drainage issue however, the Petitioner's father granted permission to put a swale across his property to improve the situation. That water will now be collected and managed by the new development. The development will be higher than the Pezold property and while the water will hit the wall, there has to be enough grade for the water to run down and be caught by the double swale on the back side of the property line for the development.Michael Meyer asked Mr. Morgan if this was an acceptable way of handling the water problem? Mr. Rush stated that the problem could be eliminated if the homeowner granted them a 10 foot wide easement to install a swale on his property. Mr. Morgan stated that while he would have to review this with the City engineer, in his opinion it would be better to install a dedicated drainage sewer and extend the inlet up to the corner, rather than installing a retaining wall.
Mr. Meyer asked the Petitioner if he had addressed this issue with the property owner? Mr. Rowles stated that he had not. Mr. Meyer stated that in his opinion the wall would cause erosion problems and therefore, would request that the two parties come together to discuss the matter in hopes of coming up with a better resolution.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if the chain-link fence identified by Ms. Derby belonged to the Flamingo Oaks Subdivision or each individual homeowner? Mr. Rowles stated that the fence was on his property line, however it was being removed and berms installed.
Ms. Boyle asked if there was a fence between the development and the Hickman's property? Mr. Rowles agreed that the barb-wired fence had been removed. Ms. Boyle asked how AmerenUE would access their power lines? Mr. Rowles stated that they would drive down the new street and walk through the development.
Michael Meyer asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner? Being no further questions or comments, Michael Meyer made a motion to continue this item to allow the Petitioner to address the culvert fencing, additional landscaping for the berms; (this can be illustrated on the final development plan), and a resolution to the grading on the northwest corner of the property line. Seconded by Daniel Call. All parties concur. Motion carried.NEW BUSINESS:
Item 2 365 North Highway 67
PZ071607-2 GMT Auto
APPROVED - Ward 3
Request Approval to Replace Existing
Fence With an 8 Foot Fence. Zoned B-3.The Chair stated Item Number Two on the Agenda, GMT Auto located at 365 North Highway 67. Request approval to replace existing fence with an 8 foot fence. Zoned B-3.
Glenn Travers appeared before the Commission representing Premier Truck Tops and Accessories. Mr. Travers stated that the new black powder coated chain-link fence will be installed to replace the existing chain-link fence located around the front and sides of the building. Front and rear gates will be removed
and a 16 foot slide will be installed to allow delivery trucks to unload on the side of the property between Waffle House rather than on Lindbergh.
Additional modifications will be made to improve the aesthetics of the site.
Michael Meyer asked the Petitioner if the existing fence was located in front of the building? Mr. Travers stated that the fence was parallel to the front of the building and Lindbergh. Mr. Meyer asked if the Petitioner had a Cross-Access Agreement to utilize the property for delivery?
John Morgan informed Mr. Meyer that the Cross-Access Agreement had been established when the property was owned by Iggy's.
Michael Meyer asked if the delivery trucks would have to utilize the spaces designated for customer parking? Mr. Travers stated that there would be enough room for customer parking, as there is additional parking in front. Mr. Meyer asked when deliveries would be made? Mr. Travers stated that all unloading would be performed during business hours. Mr. Meyer questioned whether the handicapped parking space would be blocked by the delivery trucks? Mr. Travers stated that there would be enough room for a trailer in between the building and parking, so it would not block parking. He stated that they would not be receiving large amounts of inventory so the truck may only be sitting there for a short period of time.
Mr. Meyer asked if there would be any type of wires on top of the fence? Mr. Travers stated that it would not be.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner why he needed to install an 8 foot fence? Mr. Travers stated that it was for security purposes. Mr. Weller asked if additional lighting would be installed in the rear of the building? Mr. Travers stated that they would probably do a rental agreement with AmerenUE to achieve lighting on the side. Mr. Weller asked if the three existing lights would be replaced? Mr. Travers stated that they would be reactivated as well.
Mr. Weller asked if any repairs were being made to the parking lot surface? Mr. Travers stated that it would be patched and sealed. Mr. Weller asked for the distance between the side of the building to the parking area? Mr. Travers stated that it was approximately 50 feet. Mr. Weller asked if the parking lot would be stripped? Mr. Travers stated that it would be.
Mr. Weller asked if the posts would be powder coated as well? Mr. Travers stated that everything would be matching.
Michael Meyer asked if there were any further questions or comments to the petitioner? Being no further questions or comments, Michael Meyer made a motion to approve the request to replace the existing 6 foot fence with an 8 foot fence, per the plans submitted, for the property located at 365 North Highway 67. Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Weller yes, Gallagher yes, Goodhart yes, Call yes, Meyer yes and Boyle yes. Motion carried.MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Historic Business District
Michael Meyer asked Mr. Morgan whether Landmark had been contacted regarding the Commission's thoughts on the requirement of a Special Use Permit for businesses within this district? Mr. Morgan stated that a memo had been sent to LHDC, although he has not talked with the Chairman. Mr. Meyer stated that the initial inquiry should evolve around whether Landmark had an interest in looking into the matter or whether they believed the current standard was sufficient.
Florissant Masonry Ordinance
John Morgan advised the Commission that Council would be discussing modifications of the Masonry Ordinance at their upcoming meeting and as such, the attending P & Z member could be asked for their opinion.
He stated that as it stands today, the recommendation is that any building over 20,000 square feet be allowed to utilize tilt-up, but the front elevation must be a brick inlay and the Commission and/or Council may require that the remaining elevations be of a decorative nature.
Michael Meyer advised Ms. Boyle that she would have to represent the Commission as a whole, and with that in mind, Mr. Meyer suggested that each Commissioner express their opinion on the proposed change.
Mr. Meyer stated that he would not be in favor of the proposed change to tilt-up, since it defeats the intent of the original Ordinance with respect to aesthetics, life span and maintenance-free. However, if tilt-up is added to the Ordinance then consideration should be limited to only those developments that constitutes a substantial amount of square footage, i.e., 50,000 square feet or more, as opposed to 20,000.
John Morgan advised the Commission that Council conducted an Executive Session wherein several members of the industry presented them with information regarding the fact that 20,000 square feet was the breaking point between what is economically feasible for brick versus tilt-up. Council was also presented information on recent buildings built with tilt-up, such as Busch Stadium and facilities in Creve Couer and Des Peres.
Jim Ross stated that he would be opposed to tilt-up, but from personal experience he is aware that industry and unions have signed-off in agreement of going with tilt-up, which is installed by carpenters. He stated that industry's view is also from the point of cost-effectiveness.
Jack Gallagher stated that while he was not opposed to tilt-up, he would like to know more about the modification. He stated that his opinion is based on the buildings constructed in Chesterfield Valley, Baldwin and Ellisville, which all look terrific.
Daniel Call asked Mr. Ross if brick in-lay was installed by carpenters? Mr. Ross stated that carpenters have become a catch-all and now they pretty much can do anything.
Mr. Call stated that he would be opposed to tilt-up and would prefer 100 percent masonry.
Dick Weller stated if you drive down Lindbergh and look at all of the brick buildings that have been constructed in the last ten years, it looks fabulous, it looks like it has got some class. But, once the City lessens its standards then contractors will begin to ask for cheaper and cheaper products to be used. He stated that Council should recognize that they are not building for the masses here, but for the discerning eye.
Ron Goodhart stated that the life span of tilt-up is approximately twenty-five years and noted that Clayco Construction located off of 1-70 is a tilt-up building. He stated that in his opinion, tilt-up does have a place, but it is in an industrial area and not a commercial setting. So, if the City is going to have a brick ordinance, it should be an all brick ordinance.
Michael Meyer stated that in his opinion, the appearance of the Clayco building has deteriorated over the years, which is something that he cannot say about too many brick buildings.
Dick Weller asked Mr. Morgan if Clayco had been one of the presenters at the Council meeting? Mr. Morgan stated that they had not been.
John Morgan noted that his office investigates approximately eight vehicles a year that go right through brick, which seems to indicate that it may not be any sturdier that tilt-up.
Mr. Morgan advised the Commission that the City has had two multi-million dollar developments that have threatened to walk as a result of the Masonry Ordinance.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Morgan if the impasse over these multi-million dollar deals was a direct result for the change? Mr. Morgan stated that the crux of the problem stems from these larger developments walking away from the table.
Jane Boyle questioned whether such a change would permit previous petitioners, such as the medical building on Dunn Road, who had originally asked for tilt-up, to come back to the City for a modification of their plans? Mr. Morgan stated that he did not know what impact the modification would have, although when this petitioner scaled the development back, they lost SSM, and that is the last he has heard of it.
Ms. Boyle asked whether all members would be in agreement with the following statement: "The Commission has discussed this issue and the majority are not in favor of the proposed change"? All Commissioners concurred.The Olympic
Dick Weller advised Mr. Morgan that he had observed this dealership unloading vehicles by blocking almost half of the outside lane on New Florissant Road with a tractor-trailer. Mr. Morgan stated that he would ask the police to keep an eye on it.
Jane Boyle noted that the final product is certainly not reflective of the plans submitted and approved by this Commission.Michael Meyer asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Daniel Call. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
