Meetings and Agendas
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 17, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments
Under New Business
2875 Patterson
Mesquite Grill Page 2-3450 West Washington
Uncle Bob's Storage Page 3-9
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESSRequest From Councilman
Tom Schneider to Review the
Landscaping Ordinance Page 9-10Per Mayor Lowery and City Council
Request to Review the Zoning Code
Regarding Title Loan Companies Page 10-11
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall, on Monday, December 17, 2007 at 7:00 p.m., with Jim Ross presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Jim Ross, Dick Weller, Daniel Call and Jack Gallagher. Also present was Deborah Carter, Court Reporter and John Morgan, Building Director.
A quorum being present the Chair declared the Planning and Zoning Commission was in session for the transaction of business.
Jim Ross stated that the next order of business would be approval of the minutes for December 3, 2007. Jim Ross made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Daniel Call. All parties concur. Motion carried.[Jane Boyle enters the meeting at 7:05 p.m.]
NEW BUSINESS:
Item 1 2875 Patterson
PZ120307-1 Mesquite Grill
CONTINUED - Ward 4
Request Approval of a Special Use
Permit to Allow for a Sit-Down,
Carry-Out and Delivery Restaurant.
Zoned B-1.The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, Mesquite Grill located at 2875 Patterson. Request approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for a sit-down, carry-out and delivery restaurant. Zoned B-1.
John Morgan advised the Commission that he had been in contact with the Petitioner's architect; that they have discussed the issues and that he is working on plans that should be available by the next meeting.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to continue this item to the next meeting. Seconded by Jack Gallagher. All parties concur. Motion carried.
Item 2 450 West Washington
PZ120307-3 Uncle Bob's Storage
MOTION FAILS - Ward 5
Request Approval to Amend Ordinance
No. 3111 to Allow for a New 49,000
Square Foot Building. Zoned M-1.The Chair stated Item Number Two on the Agenda, Uncle Bob's Storage located at 450 West Washington. Request approval to amend Ordinance Number 3111 to allow for a new 49,000 square foot building. Zoned M-1.
Larry Wurm of James Engineering and Jack Wright of Ladue Building and Engineering appeared before the Commission.
Mr. Wurm stated that they had submitted a Revised Site Plan and Mr. Wright provided a brief explanation of the plan. Mr. Wright noted that the plan had been reviewed by the Building Director.
Improved Screening: The Petitioner has concluded that the existing 7 foot chain-link fence located along residential property is acceptable, however the east and south sides of the fence as they currently exist do not have screening and new vinyl slats will be added to match the existing fence.
Mr. Wright advised the Commission that the wooden fence previously discussed is located on private property and therefore is not included within this expansion.
John Morgan stated that although he had reviewed the plans, staff does not accept or approve fencing.
Site Lighting: No lighting will be provided along the perimeter of the property. Lighting is required on the side of the building and will be provided in the form of wall packs. As a result of their uncertainty the Petitioner provided two photometric studies; one with a 1 foot candle minimum and the second with a 1 foot candle average.
The two existing pole lights will be relocated and are included within the plans.
Parking: There is no code requirement that stipulates parking for a mini storage facility. The Petitioner will provide one identifiable loading area adjacent to the main entrance of the building and four customer parking spots.
Trash Enclosures: Currently there is one trash enclosure on site near the main entrance to the facility. The proposal is to expand the enclosure to accommodate two dumpsters. The enclosure will be constructed with brick and metal gates.
Mechanical Equipment: Ground mounted compressors as indicated on the Revised Site Plan will be enclosed per code, i.e., brick, with reinforced solid metal gates.
Hours of Operation/Access: The hours of access are 24/7. The hours of operation are from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
Jim Ross noted his displeasure with the addition of vinyl slats to the fencing. He then asked the Petitioner for their final decision on the site lighting? Mr. Wright stated that they would utilize the plan with the 1 foot candle average along the perimeter of the building.
John Morgan concurred with the decision, stated that the plan provided lower foot candles near residential properties.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if lighting would be directed downward and inward? Mr. Wright stated that it would be.
Mr. Ross asked if the total number of customer parking spaces was five? Mr. Wright stated that that was correct. Mr. Wurm stated that during his entire time on the site he has never seen more than three cars on the premises at one time, although there is space to add additional parking along the side if it is deemed necessary.
Daniel Call asked Mr. Morgan if the construction of a new building triggered the square footage requirement with respect to parking? Mr. Morgan stated that there was nothing in the code for this type of use and therefore, it is a matter of simply saying how much parking is needed for the people utilizing this building? He stated that should the building usage change it is his belief that there is sufficient ground remaining to accommodate any requirement.
Mr. Call asked Mr. Wurm if he could provide him with an estimate of the average amount of time an individual client spends at the facility? Mr. Wurm stated that while he was not keeping track of the time spent it can be provided by the manager of the facility. He noted that the new units will be larger than the existing units and as a result, may generate longer visit times than previously experienced. Mr. Call stated that his major concern is that customers will not be blocked when attempting to enter or exit their unit.
Mr. Call asked the Petitioner if the light packs would provide sufficient lighting to illuminate the back corners of the building? Mr. Wright stated that although the lights will be more intense in certain areas they are designed to illuminate the entire facility.
John Morgan stated that there would be 3.2 foot candles located at the corners that dissipates to .4 and .8 at the property line corners.
Jane Boyle informed the Petitioner that their proposal for vinyl slats on the chain-link fence was something that the Commission has not been in agreement with in the past and therefore, she would be unable to support their decision.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner for the number of units in the new structure? Mr. Wright stated that there would be 260 units. Mr. Weller asked if parking for the storage of vehicles would be striped? Mr. Wurm stated that it is presently striped and will be re-striped after construction. Mr. Weller asked how close the striping was to the side of the building? Mr. Wurm stated that it was approximately 30 feet. Mr. Weller stated that based on his experience the largest amount of traffic will occur on the weekends and with 260 units it is more probable than not, that this area would become congested. Mr. Wurm stated that they had plenty of room to add more striping and if necessary, they could prepare a row plan.
Mr. Weller voiced his dissatisfaction with the addition of vinyl slats to the dated fencing; (the fence was erected in roughly 1979), and suggested that something more aesthetically pleasing be erected.
Mr. Weller asked the Petitioner for the amount of lighting wattage?
John Morgan stated that there would be (12) at 40 watts and (2) at 400 watts.
Mr. Weller stated that he had a concern with the lighting located on back wall since the percentage of light appears to be intrusive for residential property. Mr. Wright stated that the Staff Report recommended that lighting be provided at the customer parking spaces and the loading area and the Petitioner went beyond that by providing wall pack lighting around the entire perimeter of the facility, so the number of fixtures in the back could be reduced.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if they wanted to address the Commission's concerns with respect to the fencing? Mr. Wright advised the Commission that the Petition was for expansion of an existing business and since the screening and chain-link fence has been there since the initiation of the business it was their belief that they had adequately addressed the problem of screening. Mr. Ross stated that from his viewpoint the problem appears to be that the majority of the Commission believes that the existing fence is outdated and should be replaced. Mr. Wright asked what type of fencing and screening would be amenable to the Commission?
Daniel Call stated that it was his belief that the Petitioner had raised a valid concern since this is an existing fence and the only requirement is to provide adequate screening per the City's Code. Mr. Call noted that the City has allowed this type of screening in other locations within the City as a preexisting condition and therefore, it would be his opinion that if there was no existing fence then yes, the requirement should be for a more modernized version. However, since it is a preexisting condition then he does not feel that the Petitioner should be penalized by being required to remove the old fence and install a new one.
Mr. Morgan advised the Commission that Mr. Call was correct in stating that there were several facilities that still maintained this type of fencing.
Commissioners Ross, Boyle and Weller all respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Call's opinion, espousing their belief that the construction of this new facility provided the Commission with an opportunity to address the current condition and request that a new fence be installed.
Jane Boyle noted that this issue was parallel to the recent circumstances surrounding Handyman Hardware, wherein the Petitioner complied with the Commission's request to replace their preexisting fence.
Jim Ross informed the Petitioner that the Commission was only addressing the portion of the fence where the new construction was being erected. Mr. Wright stated that they would be unable to stipulate to replacement of the fence in that area.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if they wished to address the Commission's concerns with respect to lighting? Mr. Wright stated that at this point in time he did not know how to address the issue since he was unsure of the data they were working with.
John Morgan advised the Commission that although the lighting wattage is not stipulated the Petitioner can present the specific wattage to City Council based on their Photometric Plan, which states that the lights will meet a certain criteria. Mr. Morgan then suggested that the Commission include a stipulation within their recommendation that lighting be in accordance with the Photometric Plan as submitted.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner how the wattage had been calculated? Mr. Wright stated that they had worked from the minimum criteria and an average wattage at the ground.
John Morgan added that while it is apparent that the engineer had to use a certain wattage to obtain the calculations, the problem stems from the fact that the specific amount of wattage is not readily accessible by looking at the table.
Dick Weller reiterated his concern with the amount of wattage being troublesome for neighboring residential property.
John Morgan stated that staff's suggestion to utilize the plan with the 1 foot candle average is based on the fact that it provides less intensity around residential property lines. Mr. Morgan reassured Commissioner Weller that all lighting levels required approval by the Building Commissioner prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit.
Daniel Call informed the Petitioner that there was no drawing number listed on the Photometric Plan.
Mr. Wright again asked the Commission what type of fencing and screening would be acceptable?
Jim Ross suggested that the Petitioner work with the Building Commissioner to adequately address this issue.
John Morgan informed the Petitioner that the Commission has approved solid vinyl and pre-cast fencing in the past.
Mr. Wright inquired whether the current height was acceptable? The Commission made no specific recommendations. Mr. Wright asked that the Petition, as presented, be submitted to the Commission for consideration.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to recommend approval to amend Ordinance Number 3111 to allow for the construction of a new 49,000 square foot building for the property located at 450 West Washington; Uncle Bob's Storage, with the following stipulations: that the approved screening for the fencing located adjacent to residential property be the existing 7 foot high chain-link fence, with the addition of vinyl slats on the south and east sides; that the site lighting be a 1 foot candle average, with lighting on the perimeter of the building to be in compliance with the Photometric Plan dated 12/14/07; that customer parking consist of 2 parking spaces on both the east and west sides of the building; that a designated loading area be located in front of the facility and that all spaces be striped; that the trash dumpster be enclosed with brick and reinforced solid metal gates and that all mechanical equipment be screened with brick enclosures. Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross no, Weller no, Gallagher yes, Call yes and Boyle no. VOTE: 3 TO 2; MOTION FAILS.NOTE TO COUNCIL: The hours of operation shall be from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. The hours of customer access shall be 24/7.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Item 3 Request From Councilman Tom
PZ121707-3 Schneider to Review the
Landscaping Ordinance.Jim Ross stated that his review of Section 405.245 of the Zoning Code revealed that the Code is silent on the issue of making any determinations with respect to the type of rocks to be utilized and only addresses trees, fencing, screening and berms. As a result, Mr. Ross stated that he was not comfortable with making a recommendation that would require the Building Commissioner to measure rocks on existing and future buildings and therefore, was prepared to make a recommendation at the conclusion of all questions and comments.
The Commission voiced no questions or comments and requested that Mr. Ross provide them with his proposed recommendation.
Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross stated that based on his opinion that the Building Commissioner not be required to make an inspection of rocks for existing or future developments he would make a motion to recommend that the Commission remain silent on this issue, offering no guidance either for or against this particular request.
All Commissioners concurred with the proposed recommendation. The motion was seconded by Daniel Call and on roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Weller yes, Gallagher yes, Call yes and Boyle yes. Motion carried.Item 4 Per Mayor Lowery and City
PZ121707-4 Council Request to Review the
Zoning Code Regarding Title Loan
Companies.Jim Ross stated that Section 405.125 of the Code includes consumer installment loan establishments as an acceptable use, but does not list title loan companies. He stated that as a lay person, his opinion is that title loan companies are different from consumer installment loan companies by their very name and definition.
Mr. Ross advised the Commission that he was prepared to make a recommendation on this item at the conclusion of all questions and comments.
Daniel Call stated that the Commission had conducted lengthy discussions regarding consumer loan companies wherein the City Attorney provided the Commission with a recommendation based on State regulations and legal precedence, establishing that
Consumer loan companies were a recognized entity.
Mr. Call also noted that some title loan companies had been grandfathered into the City of Florissant. As a result of these previous determinations, Mr. Call suggested that the Commission request that the same type of due diligence be performed by the City Attorney with respect to title loan companies.
Jim Ross made the following recommendation: that prior to further consideration, City Council impose a six month moratorium on the establishment of any new title loan companies pending a complete analysis and recommendation by the City Attorney and Building Commissioner.
Daniel Call stated that prior to his concurrence he would like the advice of the City Attorney as to whether a moratorium could legally be imposed.
John Morgan informed the Commission that consumer installment loan companies and title loan companies were subcategories of a consumer loan company and therefore, would strongly suggest against the use of the term consumer loan company.
Dick Weller asked Mr. Morgan is this was an issue that he was currently working on? Mr. Morgan stated that currently he was conducting the research, which would be presented to Mr. Hessel for evaluation and discussion.
All Commissioners concurred with the proposed recommendation.
Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion that prior to further consideration, City Council impose a six month moratorium on the establishment of any new title loan companies pending a complete analysis and recommendation by the City Attorney and Building Commissioner. Seconded by Jane Boyle. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Weller yes, Gallagher yes, Call yes and Boyle yes. Motion carried.Jane Boyle is scheduled to attend the January 14, 2007 City Council Meeting.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Jack Gallagher. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
