Meetings and Agendas
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JULY 16, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments
Under New Business
2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier
Rezoning Page 2
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall, on Monday, July 16, 2007 at 7:00 p.m., with Michael Meyer presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Michael Meyer, Jack Gallagher, Ron Goodhart 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 2, 2007. Jack Gallagher made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Ron Goodhart. All parties concur. Motion carried.
Pursuant to the Missouri Sunshine Law, Michael Meyer made a motion to adjourn the public meeting and go into Executive Session. Seconded by Jack Gallagher. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Gallagher yes, Meyer yes and Goodhart yes. Motion carried.[Whereupon, the public meeting was recessed at 7:05 p.m. to reconvene this same day at 7:10 p.m.]
NEW BUSINESS:
Item 1 2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier
PZ071607-1 RDD Design Development
CONTINUED - Ward 2
Request Approval to Rezone
Referenced Property From R-3 to
R-4. Zoned R-3.The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, 2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier. Request approval to rezone referenced property from R-3 to R-4. Zoned R-3.
Steve Rush of Site Development Engineering and Greg Rolwes appeared before the Commission and presented a Powerpoint presentation on 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 Design: 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. (The 100 foot easement can only be utilized if all homeowners affected by the easement are in total agreement.)
Landscaping: The common ground and detention base will be landscaped. A landscaping package is also included with each villa. Above-ground detention is proposed.
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.
Signage: The proposed monument entry signage will be identical to the signage located at Lowery Estates.Michael Meyer asked the Petitioner if he could identify the lots with the 15 foot rear yard setbacks? Mr. Rush stated that it would be the top five lots; (10 through 15). Mr. Meyer asked if the variation was due to the construction of the cul-de-sac? Mr. Rush stated that that was correct.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Morgan if there was a requirement for the construction of a cul-de-sac? Mr. Morgan stated that the current requirements mandate that the Fire Department dictate the diameter of the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Meyer asked the Petitioner if any consideration had been given to extending the development? Mr. Rolwes stated that they had tried to buy additional property, but were unsuccessful. Mr. Meyer asked the Petitioner if he could provide him with more details on the 100 feet setback? Mr. Rolwes stated that the restriction was prior to his family acquiring this property and that it applies to all homeowners along Charbonier Road. To date, the covenant is strictly adhered to and resulted in a lawsuit between Shop N Save and the homeowners. Mr. Meyer asked how long the Rolwes family had owned this property? Mr. Rolwes stated approximately forty-five years.
Mr. Meyer asked how the entrance of the development aligned with the entrances to the Koch Park? Mr. Rush stated that it was almost directly across the street. Mr. Meyer asked if the intention was to line this entrance up with the Koch Park entrance? Mr. Rush stated that it was possible to do so. Mr. Meyer noted that the Koch Park entrance was heavily used and therefore, he has some concern with excessive traffic resulting from the two entrances.
Mr. Rolwes stated that the plans had been reviewed by St. Louis County Highways, who recommended that Charbonier Road be widened and is indicated by the light gray area on the plans.
Mr. Meyer asked where the monument sign would be constructed? Mr. Rolwes stated that they could not construct it within the right-of-way, therefore, they would have to find an area with the most visibility within those restrictions. Mr. Meyer asked that the location of the sign be identified on the plans.
Mr. Meyer asked whether a fence would be constructed at the top of the culvert? Mr. Rush stated that the installation of a fence was a City of Florissant requirement. Mr. Morgan concurred.
Mr. Meyer noted that several swales seemed to be inappropriately located on a neighboring property to the west of the development. Mr. Rush stated that he had been made aware of the need to move the swales, however, it is not been revised on the plans.
Mr. Meyer expressed concerns with the swales located on the east end of the property, where in his opinion, it appears as though the water would drain off of the site, rather than staying on the site and working its way around to the first catch basin. Mr. Rush stated that when they get to the engineering plan there will be a section of the swale required by MSD, which will show either a 4 to 1 or 3 to 1 slope. Mr. Meyer noted that the current plans call for a maximum 3 to 1 slope. To ensure that there is no runoff onto Flamingo Oaks Mr. Meyer requested that the plans illustrate the swales within that area in order to demonstrate how the water will be maintained on their portion of the development, as well as how it will get to the first catch basin located on the south.
Mr. Meyer then recited General Note No. 6 contained within the plans and questioned whether MSD regulated silting retention through the requirement of specific documentation?
John Morgan informed Mr. Meyer that MSD has handed that responsibility down to the municipalities, wherein Petitioners must submit, via the Land Disturbance Ordinance, a better practices plan to the Director of Public Works, which is then reviewed and inspected. Mr. Meyer asked that the Petitioner include a note with General Note No. 6 that states, "Per the State of Missouri; DNR".
John Morgan stated that the Ordinance had been approved by DNR.
Mr. Meyer stated that General Note No. 7 had bothered him in that it states that the surveyor is not responsible for anything. Mr. Rush stated that Site Development Engineering had not performed the photographic and boundary survey for the site, and therefore, was not responsible for anything relating to those areas. He stated that by law, the person that completes the Boundary Survey must do the record plat.
Mr. Meyer asked if the current allowable yield of twenty lots included or excluded the 100 foot right-of-way? Mr. Rush stated that it is as if nothing is there and he has 4.734 acres and could construct 10,000 square foot lots. Mr. Meyer asked the Petitioner how he had reached the allowable yield of thirty-two lots? Mr. Rush stated that the proposal is an R-4, RDD, which means that an R-4 Zoning can go down to the next classification, which would be an R-5, with a 5,000 square foot residential requirement. So using the RDD you take the gross area of the tract, subtract from that the right-of-way, which is this case is almost exactly 1 acre, and then divide that by 5,000 square feet, which gives you thirty-two lots.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Rolwes if he could perform some research to find out how the 100 feet setback was established, when it was established, et cetera.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the setbacks on the last four lots were the same as previously identified in the last presentation? Mr. Rush stated that they were.
Jack Gallagher asked the Petitioner if the 100 foot setback was included within the portion of Charbonier that will be widened? Mr. Rush stated that his assumption is that it would be. Mr. Gallagher asked if additional landscaping or fencing would be located at the property lines of Lots 7 through 12, which are adjacent to the Flamingo Oaks Subdivision? Mr. Rolwes stated that there was an existing 6 foot fence along the property line, although he would not be opposed to adding additional landscaping.
Michael Meyer asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner?Resident Ben Bull, of 2435 Charbonier appeared before the Commission and stated that this proposal is in the midst of Charbonier Acres, which was established in 1947 and zoned as Non-Urban. The 100 foot setback was established at the same time of the subdivision.
Mr. Bull expressed concerns regarding rezoning and the number of proposed homesites.
Resident Steve Greensfelder (phonetic), of 2395 Charbonier appeared before the Commission and asked the following questions: (1). How close are the top two lots to his property? (2). Is there a requirement that the lots be at least 8 feet from his property line?
Mr. Greensfelder expressed a concern with the lack of being informed about the development and the number of proposed homesites.
Michael Meyer informed the resident that the process being pursued by the Petitioner was permitted by Florissant Ordinance, which is then reviewed by this Commission and submitted to Council for a final determination.
Resident Ben Bull, Jr., of 2435 Charbonier appeared before the Commission and advised them that a lot of confusion is based on the fact that residents were not privy to this petition and their request for rezoning beforehand. Mr. Bull stated that he follows the City's web site, however the June 18th agenda had not been posted.
Michael Meyer advised the resident that the Commission's meetings are held on the first and third Monday of each month and that the agenda is posted at City Hall on the Friday prior to the meeting.
Mr. Bull expressed opposition to the proposed cluster housing, the rezoning to R-4 and the fact that the development would not fit within the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Bull also advised the Commission that the Petitioner had not mowed his grass in over a year.
Resident Jerry Petti, of #4 Starkway, appeared before the Commission and stated that currently he has a flooding problem whenever there is a storm of any magnitude, so naturally, he would have a concern with the addition of cluster housing and its impact on stormwater runoff. Mr. Petti also expressed a concern with the retention pond, the proposed variances, the broken fence located along the property line and the problems associated with the construction of Shop N Save.
Resident Bonnie Hickman, of 2275 Charbonier, appeared before the Commission and expressed concerns with the increased traffic as it relates to the safety of the children at the park, the impact of stormwater runoff and the impact of the development on the overall character of the neighborhood.
Michael Meyer concurred that there was a need for the City to review and hopefully improve the entrance to Koch Park.
Ms. Hickman requested that a fence be installed between her property and the development to ensure that there is no trespassing onto her property.Ron Goodhart asked Resident Ben Bull, Sr., how many lots were located within Charbonier Acres? Mr. Bull stated that there were eight, 3 acre lots.
Mr. Bull questioned whether fences would be installed between the side yards?Resident Steve Greensfelder, of 2395 Charbonier appeared before the Commission and asked whether any consideration had been given to updating the septic systems for the houses along Charbonier?
Michael Meyer informed Mr. Greensfelder that that would be a question for MSD, who would retain ownership of the sewers.Mr. Rolwes responded to the following issues addressed by the residents:
Sanitary Sewers: 2375 is already on a sanitary sewer however, the Petitioner has not been required to do any off-site extensions.
Stormwater Runoff: The stormwater runoff, which is a common concern with homeowners when a community is being developed, has been addressed by the Commission, as well as MSD, who will not allow anyone, by their standards, to dump any additional water onto a neighboring property. In most situations, the creation of a detention system, which manages the water, improves the stormwater situation within the surrounding areas.
Density: In a perfect situation the Petitioner would have been permitted to construct twenty homes, however, taking the current hardships into consideration the Petitioner is only proposing to develop eighteen units, which is permissible under the RDD Zoning.
Neighborhood Demographics: Mr. Rolwes stated that the complexion of the neighborhood changed with the addition of Shop N Save, which also makes it more appealing for this type of a development. New homeowners do not want yard maintenance and market research has indicated that this type of development is something that this area needs.
Variances: Regarding the property line variances, Lot 13 no longer needs a variance and Lot 12 has been reduced to 20 feet. Mr. Rolwes stated that to enhance privacy from a neighbor or any one behind the property each villa has a nook on the side for the construction of a patio.
Michael Meyer asked the Petitioner if he would address the issue of fencing and staff's recommendation pertaining to Lots 10 through 14? Mr. Rolwes stated that the design of the homes includes a side nook for the construction of a corner patio therefore, no occupant would have to come before the Board of Adjustments to install a standard sized rear deck.
The fence along the Hickman section is a wire fence and although a barb-wired fence may not be appropriate, additional research would have to be conducted to determine what can be done. The fence along Flamingo Oaks is a chain-link fence, which will be repaired. No variance is being requested for the homes adjacent to the Hickman property and no fences have been included within the design.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if homeowners would be provided with any other options for the construction of a patio or deck? Mr. Rolwes stated that this would be the only option available for the entire development. Mr. Ross asked if patios or decks were optional? Mr. Rolwes stated that they were.
Jack Gallagher asked the Petitioner for the estimated time of completion? Mr. Rolwes stated that the completion date would be dependent upon sales, although a niche market such as this one is not hurting with the current down-turn of the housing market. Mr. Gallagher asked how long it had taken to complete Lowery Estates? Mr. Rolwes said approximately two years.
Ron Goodhart asked the Petitioner who would be their target market? Mr. Rolwes stated that research indicates that today's family, as well as empty nesters would be interested in this type of development.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner what would delineate this community from the Hickman property? Mr. Rolwes stated that typically the green space and pasture would create the delineation however, landscaping may be an option, as well as the fact that each homeowner has the option of installing their own fence.
Michael Meyer asked the Petitioner if homeowners would have a choice for the type of fence they could install? Mr. Rolwes stated that only the material is restricted.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 the Petition to the August 6th meeting to allow the Petitioner to address the following: the entrance and its alignment with Koch Park; the location and design of the monument sign; the culvert fencing; additional swaling for the northeast corner of the property; the addition of fences or landscaping; relocation of the contours on the west side of the property; revision of General Note No. 6 on grading and erosion control and additional research on the 100 foot setback. Seconded by Jim Ross. All parties concur. Motion carried.
Michael Meyer asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Michael Meyer made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Jim Ross. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
