Planning and Zoning

Meetings and Agendas

MINUTES

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

JUNE 18, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS                        PAGE NO.

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

Under New Business

2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier
Rezoning                                   Page 2-5

2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier
Rezoning                                   Page 5-7

9 Rissant Drive
Homeowner                                  Page 7-9

             PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

          The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall, on Monday, June 18, 2007 at 7:00 p.m., with Jim Ross presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Dick Weller, Ron Goodhart, Jack Gallagher, Jim Ross, Daniel Call and Jane Boyle. 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.
Jim Ross stated that the next order of business would be approval of the minutes for June 4, 2007. Dick Weller asked that the minutes be amended to include his comment on page 8 pertaining to the sign being no higher than the roof line. Deborah Carter explained that the reason why the comment had been omitted was because the Petitioner was using the existing frame, which is in compliance with this recommendation. Mr. Weller was amenable to the explanation to eliminate the comment. Jack Gallagher made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Jim Ross. All parties concur. Motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS:

Item 1        2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier
PZ061807-1    Rezoning
              RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - 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 adjacent to Koch Park and Shop N Save, and sits approximately 1200 feet from Howdershell and Shackelford. The tract of land consists of 4.734 acres.
The proposed R-4 Residential Design

Development zoning provides for 5000 square foot lots. The allowable yield is the area of the tract, minus the right-of-way dedication, divided by the R-4 Zoning of 7500 square feet, which provides for twenty-one (21) detached villas. The petitioner is proposing eighteen (18) villas, with a density of 7,044 square feet per lot.
Landscaping: The common ground and detention base will be landscaped. A landscaping package is also included with each villa.
Building Characteristics: Villas will range from 1700 to 2500 square feet. 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.
Proposed Variances: The top five lots; (10 through 14), reflect a rear yard setback of 15 feet and a 20 foot front yard setback. (All side yards will meet the requirement of 6 feet.)

          Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if this land was currently owned by the Rolwes family? Mr. Rolwes stated that it was. Mr. Ross asked if the home located on Charbonier would remain? Mr. Rolwes stated that the residence is family property and would remain on the site.
Dick Weller questioned whether a rezoning to R-4 would allow the Petitioner to reduce the square footage from 10,000 to 7,500? Mr. Rolwes stated that it would. Mr. Weller asked whether the allowable yield encompassed the total acreage? Mr. Rolwes stated that it only included the areas used for building. Mr. Weller asked if the areas for the detention basins were included in the calculations? Mr. Rush stated that based on his understanding it should be included, however, the purpose of the RDD is to allow for hardships such as the one presented by this property. And as a result, no building is allowed for the first 100 feet because of the existing setback, the creek and detention.
John Morgan explained that while typically the City only requires a 40 foot setback for a residential district, the 100 foot setback is a part of the deed restriction placed on the property many years ago. He stated that the yield consists of the common ground, plus the areas used to build the villas.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if some of the common ground was located in the flood plane of the creek? Mr. Rush stated that the flood plane only extended up 10 feet to the top of the bank.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if the Hickman house located behind Shop N Save would be included within this development? Mr. Rolwes stated that it would not be.   Ms. Boyle asked if the proposed development would abut the Hickman property by 15 feet? Mr. Rush stated that any construction located near the Hickman property would maintain a 25 foot rear yard setback.
Ms. Boyle expressed a concern with the density of the project, as there seemed to be too many houses for the area.
Daniel Call asked the Petitioner if there would be 2 feet of fill used for the project? Mr. Rush stated that that was correct. Mr. Call asked where the fill would be obtained? Mr. Rush stated it would come from the basement and sewer dirt.
Mr. Call noted that eleven (11) of the villas were actually less than the average 7,500 square foot requirement, which also caused him to have a concern with the density and size of the lots.
Jack Gallagher asked the Petitioner if St. Louis County was requiring them to extend the roadway? Mr. Rush stated that they had been required to provide an additional right-of-way and to widen the street in front of the site.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if emergency vehicles would be able to maneuver around the island located in the center of the main drive? Mr. Rush informed Mr. Ross that this was a St. Louis County requirement that accommodated all traffic. Mr. Rolwes noted that the island was also a requirement of American Water, who runs the water service through the island in order to accommodate various home sites. He stated that in his opinion, it also added curb appeal.
Mr. Ross questioned whether the elimination of two homes would make the project feasible? Mr. Rolwes stated that it would not, since the current density represents the minimum allowable within the City's zoning requirements.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if there would be a sewer line on the property? Mr. Rolwes stated that there would be.
Ron Goodhart asked the Petitioner if streetlights would be installed? Mr. Rolwes stated that they would be.
John Morgan advised the Commission that the location of streetlights would be determined by the Director of Public Works and AmerenUE.
Jane Boyle questioned whether the Homeowner Association Fee would also cover maintenance of the common ground? Mr. Rolwes stated that it would. Ms. Boyle asked the Petitioner if he was aware of the rear yard setbacks for the Flamingo Oak Subdivision? Mr. Rush stated that they were approximately 32 to 50 feet from the back of the homes to the property line.
John Morgan stated that the one thing the Commission should keep in mind is that storm water retention requirements are a lot different today than they were years ago.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner? Being no further questions or comments, Daniel Call made a motion to recommend approval to rezone the property located at 2315, 2355 and 2375 Charbonier from R-3 to an R-4, per the drawings submitted and numbered 204-052, sheet 1 of 2, dated May 31, 2007 and sheet 2 of 2, dated May 31, 2007. Seconded by Jim Ross. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Weller yes, Gallagher yes, Goodhart yes, Call no and Boyle yes. VOTE: 5 TO 1; MOTION CARRIES.

          Dissenting Opinion: Daniel Call advised the Petitioner that he had voted against the project because it did not meet the 7500 square feet minimum lot size requirement.

Item 2        2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier
PZ061807-2    Rezoning
MOTION FAILS - Ward 2
              Request Approval for a Residential
              Designed Development to Allow For The
              Construction of (18) Family Detached
              Dwellings. Zoned R-3.

          The Chair stated Item Number Two on the Agenda, 2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier. Request approval for a residential designed development to allow for the construction of (18) family detached dwellings. Zoned R-3.
Steve Rush of Site Development Engineering and Greg Rolwes again appeared before the Commission.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Morgan whether this project would have to go before the Board of Variances? Mr. Morgan stated that while there is a possibility of that happening, the Petitioner has acknowledged that there is room to build an average size deck on the five lots in question.
Mr. Ross questioned whether a fence would be installed to separate the property from Flamingo Oaks? Mr. Rolwes stated that currently there is a chain-link fence that will remain, and may include additional landscaping.
Dick Weller noted that staff had recommended that a decorative wrought iron or aluminum fence be installed around the detention area or retaining wall. Mr. Rolwes stated that they were aware of the requirement to install a fence around the retaining wall and that the one proposed would be similar to the one installed at Lowery Estates. Mr. Weller asked for the depth of the retaining wall? Mr. Rush stated that it was approximately 5 feet.
Jane Boyle asked Mr. Morgan if he could provide clarification on staff's Recommendation Number 1? Mr. Morgan stated that the intent was to substantiate that the proposed floor plans for Lots 10 through 14 are adhered to under the RDD to ensure that the City would not be faced with five property owners asking for variances along the rear property lines.
Ms. Boyle stated that staff had also recommended that the final plat for landscaping be submitted and approved by this Commission. Mr. Morgan stated that the Petitioner would have to provide a Final Development Plan to the Commission for review once the RDD is written.
Ms. Boyle suggested that all staff recommendations be incorporated into the Commission's recommendation to Council.
Daniel Call noted that staff had also advised the Petitioner that "The RDD procedure required that the preliminary plan state the floor plan areas," which has not been stated and therefore, the drawings currently before the Commission do not conform. Mr. Morgan stated that that is correct. Mr. Call recommended that the Petition be continued to allow Petitioner an opportunity to correct the drawings so that a complete package could be forwarded to Council. Mr. Morgan suggested that the submitted floor plans be attached to the preliminary plan or that the plans be revised under Note 10 of the Project Information to state the square footage of the homes.
Mr. Rolwes stated that they were not aware of the requirement, however, the base for each home is 1,674 square feet.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Call if he would be amenable to either option? Mr. Call stated that he would not be.
Jane Boyle asked if this petition dealt with the approval of the preliminary site plan and lot size? Mr. Morgan stated that that was correct.
Mr. Rolwes again advised the Commission that the hardships of utilizing this property had increased their costs due to the requirement to construct a box culvert and the elimination of one home.
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 for a residential designed development to allow for the construction of (18) family detached dwellings for the property located at 2315, 2355 & 2375 Charbonier, with the following stipulations: that the preliminary plan include the layout of the floor plans submitted in the Powerpoint presentation; that the maximum size of the homes on lots 10 through 14 be delineated as such that an average size deck can be constructed; that the common grounds be landscaped with trees and bushes; that the landscape plan be submitted with the Final Development Plan for review and approval by this Commission; that a decorative wrought iron or aluminum fence be installed around the retention area retaining wall and that the entrance to the subdivision be identified by a brick monument sign on each side, to include landscape beds. Seconded by Dick Weller. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross no, Weller no, Gallagher yes, Goodhart yes, Call no and Boyle no. VOTE: 4 TO 2; MOTION FAILS.

          Dissenting Opinions: Daniel Call reiterated his previous objection regarding the size of the lots and the fact that the preliminary plans did not include the floor plan area as required.
Commissioners Ross and Weller concurred with the rationale provided by Commissioner Call.

Item 3        9 Rissant Drive
PZ061807-3    Homeowner
              APPROVED - Ward 6
              Request Approval of a Room Addition
              to Allow for a Storm Shelter.
              Zoned R-4.

          The Chair stated Item Number Three on the Agenda, 9 Rissant Drive. Request approval of a room addition to allow for a storm shelter. Zoned R-4.
James Boyer appeared before the Commission and stated that he was requesting permission for a stand-alone storm shelter based on his phobia of tornadoes and the lack of a basement in his home.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the shelter would be located on his patio? Mr. Boyer stated that it would be installed on the upper left hand corner. Mr. Ross asked for the shelter's capacity level? Mr. Boyer stated that it held approximately five people. Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner how long he had lived at 9 Rissant Drive? Mr. Boyer stated forty-one years. Mr. Ross asked if any supplies would be stored in the shelter? Mr. Boyer stated that the only supplies would be those necessary to weather the storm. Mr. Ross asked if the house had a garage? Mr. Boyer stated that it did not.
Ron Goodhart asked the Petitioner if there would be any additions made to the shelter that would help it blend in with the existing structure? Mr. Boyer stated that no additions were planned.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Morgan if this would be considered a room addition? Mr. Morgan stated that it would not be.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if he had discussed installing the shelter with any of his neighbors? Mr. Boyer stated that since the shelter can only be seen by his next door neighbors and possibly the neighbor located in the rear of his home, he had only talked to one of his neighbors.
Dick Weller asked Mr. Morgan if there was a specific amount of clearance required between the window of the house and the shelter? Mr. Morgan stated that there should be enough room to get in and out of the window in emergency situations. Mr. Boyer stated that there would be 2 feet between the window and the shelter.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if any type of screening would be provided for the shelter? Mr. Boyer stated that there was a solid plastic material located on each side of his patio which would screen it from his neighbors on the side.
Daniel Call asked the Petitioner if he could verify that the dimensions depicted on the drawing were accurate? Mr. Boyer stated that although he did not draw the diagram, he was sure that the dimensions were accurate. Mr. Call asked for the size of the shelter? Mr. Boyer stated that the inside dimensions were 5 X 7 feet. Mr. Call asked the Petitioner for the thickness of his patio? Mr. Boyer stated that it was 4 inches thick. Mr. Call asked if the patio was reinforced? Mr. Boyer stated that it was. Mr. Call advised the Petitioner that with the number of anchor bolts needed to install the structure the drilling would set up failure modes on the concrete. Mr. Boyer stated that he would certainly address this issue before the shelter was installed.
Mr. Call suggested that the motion include a stipulation that in the event the neighbor located at the rear of this property complains or objects to the structure, that the Petitioner be required to screen the shelter from his view. Mr. Boyer concurred with the suggestion.
Jim Ross 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 addition of a storm shelter for the property located at No. 9 Rissant Drive, with the following stipulations: that there be at least 2 feet between the window of the house and the shelter and that within one year from the date of the construction of the shelter the neighbor located at the rear of this property complains or objects to the structure, that the Petitioner be required to screen the shelter from his view.   Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Weller yes, Gallagher yes, Goodhart yes, Call yes and Boyle yes. Motion carried.

          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 was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.