Meetings and Agendas
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 7, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments
Under Old Business
2875 Patterson
Mesquite Grill Page 2-3Under New Business
2400 Cherry
Ward 8 Page 3-7450 West Washington
Uncle Bob's Storage Page 7-12
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESSPer Mayor Lowery and City Council
Request to Review the Zoning Code
Regarding Title Loan Companies Page 12-15
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, Jane Boyle, Michael Meyer 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 17, 2007. Jim Ross made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Daniel Call. All parties concur. Motion carried.NEW BUSINESS:
Item 1 2875 Patterson
PZ120307-1 Mesquite Grill
PETITION WITHDRAWN - Ward 4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.
Jim Ross announced that the Commission had received a letter from the Petitioner asking that the Petition be withdrawn.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to withdraw the Petition. Seconded by Jack Gallagher. All parties concur. Motion carried.
New Business:
Item 2 2400 Cherry
PZ120307-1 APPROVED - Ward 8
Request Approval to Convert a One-
Story Home into a Two-Story Home.
Zoned R-4.The Chair stated Item Number Two on the Agenda, 2400 Cherry. Request approval to convert a one-story home into a two-story home. Zoned R-4.
Sean Cox appeared before the Commission and stated that his ultimate goal is to completely rehab the home on Cherry to consist of five bedrooms, two and a half baths, a family room/storage area located in the attic and then resell it.
He stated that the project initiated as a fire restoration that was to be completely gutted down to the framing and then rebuilt. However, once the structure was torn apart they discovered extensive terminate damage in the original portion of the house, as well as a ceiling height of only 7'4". All of the walls were then torn down, with the exception of the addition and rebuilt for 9 foot ceilings with roof trusses.
Mr. Cox stated that initially he had obtained a permit for fire restoration and the addition of roof trusses on a portion of the house. However, after he determined the extent of the damage he re-contacted the City to have the home re-inspected prior to proceeding further. Mr. Cox stated that at that point he was advised that the pitch of the attic trusses required approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner when the fire had occurred? Mr. Cox provided an estimate of February '06. Mr. Ross asked when the home had been purchased? Mr. Cox stated that he purchased the home in August of '07. Mr. Ross asked if the original plans for restoration were submitted to the City of Florissant? Mr. Cox stated that they were. Mr. Ross asked if the plans had been approved? Mr. Cox stated that they had.
John Morgan advised the Commission that on fire restorations a scope of work is presented and not formal plans. And if the scope of work details that it is basically replacing what has been damaged, the permit is issued.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if he had informed the City that his intent was to restore the home back to its original condition? Mr. Cox stated that it had been his belief that a submittal had been made to replace half of the roof trusses and enlarge the home. However the Building Department informed him that they had not received such plans and that the application before them was to restore the home back to its original condition. Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if he had any paperwork to substantiate his claim? Mr. Cox stated that there were no signed documents approving the changes in the roof. Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner why he wanted to enlarge the home? Mr. Cox stated that in his opinion it would provide a better resale value.
Mr. Ross asked if the design could be reconfigured to eliminate the half-story? Mr. Cox stated that it could not. Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if he had talked with any of the neighbors regarding the size of the home? Mr. Cox stated that he had talked with several neighbors who seemed happy that the house was being restored. Mr. Ross advised the Petitioner that Ms. Marge Chapie of 2465 Cherry Lane had sent an e-mail to the Commission indicating her disapproval based on the fact that the enlarged design would not blend into the neighborhood. Mr. Cox stated that he had not been contacted by Ms. Chapie.
Excluding the attic, Michael Meyer asked the Petitioner to provide him with the square footage of the new design versus the original design? Mr. Cox stated that the old house was approximately 2200 square feet and the new house would be roughly 2800 square feet. Mr. Meyer stated that based on his observations the original square footage did not seem correct, since the new design appeared to be twice the size of the neighboring properties. Mr. Cox informed Mr. Meyer that he had not added anything to the actual footprint, and that this home had been one of the largest in the neighborhood.
Mr. Meyer stated that his belief is that had the City known that the changes were going to be this drastic, they would have requested that plans be submitted; number one, to determine if the walls would support the new design. Mr. Cox stated that all of the walls supporting the trusses were new. Mr. Meyer asked what was being done to handle the additional run-off created by the extra 600 square feet? Mr. Cox stated that the original footprint of the house; 30 feet by 50 feet, is exactly the same as it was before and therefore the gutters would be catching the same square footage of rain. Mr. Meyer asked the Petitioner how he had gained 600 square feet? Mr. Cox stated that the additional footage was obtained by taking the roof up to a 2/12 pitch and an 8/12 pitch in the half-story area.
John Morgan informed Mr. Meyer that the square footage was the same; it was just that the pitch of the roof would generate more sheeting.
Michael Meyer expressed a concern as to whether this design met the intent of the original submittal and if it was compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Jack Gallagher asked Mr. Morgan if there was an Ordinance that prohibited this type of an enlargement? Mr. Morgan advised Mr. Gallagher that Zoning Code 505.250 states that the Commission must make a determination as to whether the new design is harmonious and consistent with surrounding properties.
Daniel Call asked Mr. Morgan if he would provide the Commission with staff's recommendation on the matter? Mr. Morgan stated that staff had taken the position that the redesign was not harmonious and therefore the Petition had been submitted to the Commission for determination. Mr. Call asked Mr. Morgan how this request differed from other homes where a second story is added and they are not brought before this Commission? Mr. Morgan stated that he would have to check into the specifics of each situation.
Mr. Call asked the Petitioner if the roof was almost complete? Mr. Cox stated that it was.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if there was only a one car garage for the five bedroom house? Mr. Cox stated that that was correct. Ms. Boyle stated that while she is always perplexed when she sees these types of additions, there are other small houses within Florissant where second stories have been added and in her opinion the precedent has already been set.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if the roof flag in the subdivision was 2/12? Mr. Cox stated that it was between 2/12 and 3/12.
Mr. Weller asked Mr. Morgan when the City became aware of the addition? Mr. Morgan stated that it became apparent once the roof was put on because the City did not have plans for a complete rebuild.
Mr. Weller asked the Petitioner if he had performed any other rebuilds within the City? Mr. Cox stated that they only done rehabs. Mr. Weller stated that in his opinion, the original 2200 square feet already exceeded the square footage in the neighborhood and would have been sufficient for a rehab.
Jack Gallagher asked the Petitioner for the distance from the back of the home to the rear property line? Mr. Cox stated approximately 15 feet. Mr. Gallagher asked for the estimated asking price of the home? Mr. Cox stated that it would be under $200,000.00. Mr. Gallagher asked for the existing home values? Mr. Cox stated that the rehabbed homes were approximately $160,000.00 and the remaining were roughly $120,000.00.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Morgan if any variances were required? Mr. Morgan stated that it was a preexisting condition and required none.
Dick Weller asked Mr. Morgan if the floor joists were coves? Mr. Morgan stated that they were 2 by 8 engineered trusses.
Michael Meyer asked that the Commission's motion contain a stipulation that a complete set of plans be submitted to the Building Commissioner for review and approval.
John Morgan advised the Commission that the Stop Work Order would not be lifted until a complete set of plans are received and an amended permit issued.
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 approve the conversion of a one-story home into a two-story home for the property located at 2400 Cherry; to include new attic trusses on the main portion of the house and front porch. Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross no, Weller no, Gallagher yes, Meyer yes, Call yes and Boyle yes. VOTE: 4 TO 2; MOTION CARRIES.Item 3 450 West Washington
PZ120307-3 Uncle Bob's Storage
PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATION
FOR APPROVAL - Ward 5
Request Approval to Amend Ordinance
No. 3111 to Allow for a New 40,000
Square Foot Building. Zoned M-1.[NOTE: This item was reviewed by the Commission on 12/17/07 and the Commission recommended denial. The Petitioner has requested that the Commission reconsider the vote to allow them to address the one remaining concern, the screening of the new building.]
Dick Weller made a motion for reconsideration of his vote. Seconded by Jack Gallagher. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Weller yes, Gallagher yes, Call yes and Boyle no. VOTE: 4 TO 1; MOTION CARRIED.
The Chair stated Item Number Three 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. Wright stated that they had submitted a Revised Site Plan to the Building Commissioner's Office depicting the proposed landscaping and a letter outlining a narrative as to what was being proposed.
He stated that their previous proposal was to modify the fence by adding slats that currently did not exist.
Landscaping/Screening: The addition of White Pine and Arborvitaes greenery located along the east and south fence lines. Immediate screening will be accomplished by utilizing the previously proposed slats, which will be shielded as the plants grow to maturity.Jim Ross questioned why the Petitioner had requested that the Commission vote on the Petition as presented at the last meeting, rather than taking advantage of the opportunity that had been afforded to amend their Petition? Mr. Wright stated that the request had been made based on his misunderstanding of the procedures and his belief that the screening introduced was sufficient because it was consistent with the current screening.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner for the approximate height of the greenery at the time of planting? Mr. Wurm stated that it would be 6 feet for both species. Mr. Ross asked for the width between each plant? Mr. Wurm stated that they would be 15 feet apart. Mr. Ross asked for the maturation period for the plants? Mr. Wurm stated that it was three to five years. Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner what type of screening would be provided in the interim? Mr. Wright stated that new slats would be added to the areas without existing slats.
Michael Meyer asked the Petitioner for the color of the slats? Mr. Wright stated that they would be beige or a color similar to what currently exists. Mr. Meyer advised the Petitioner that vinyl slats had a tendency to break, crack and deteriorate from light, making them subject to constant repair or replacement.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Morgan if the Fire Marshal had reviewed this plan? Mr. Morgan stated that he had reviewed the plan and requested that a fire hydrant be installed. Mr. Meyer asked if the Fire Marshal had expressed a concern with access from the back as a result of the screened mechanical units? Mr. Morgan stated that the Fire Marshal had expressed no specific concern.
Mr. Meyer asked the Petitioner if the slats were being utilized with the proposed chain-link fence?
Mr. Wurm stated that the screening would be built to code. Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Wurm if he would provide an explanation of built to code? Mr. Wright stated that the Petitioner had stipulated that the enclosures would be constructed of brick with steel gates. Mr. Meyer asked for the size of the AC units? Mr. Wright stated that the HVAC had not been designed. Mr. Meyer stated that the size of the units, which may be rather large, caused him some concern with respect to noise levels and therefore substantial screening would have to be utilized. Mr. Wurm stated that they would work with staff to ensure a reduction in the noise levels.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Morgan whether a specific Motion for Reconsideration granted the Commission jurisdiction to review the entire petition? Mr. Morgan stated that although the petition was returned as a result of the screening issue, technically it reopens the entire petition.
Michael Meyer asked the Petitioner if an irrigation system would be installed for the landscaping? Mr. Wright stated that no system would be installed however the intent is to make arrangements with a landscaping contractor to assist with maintenance.
Daniel Call expressed his satisfaction with the revised landscaping and screening plan.
Jane Boyle stated that in more recent years the Commission has not allowed slats for screening. She stated that while the slats are consistent with the current fencing, the fence was built many years ago and therefore, she would be unable to support the petition as presented.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner for the distance of the south property line to the fence? Mr. Wright stated that it was approximately 5 feet.
Mr. Weller asked if the fire hydrant located on Reeb Lane was on the Petitioner's property line? Mr. Morgan stated that such a determination would be made by the Fire Marshal.
Mr. Weller stated that his research of Arborvitaes revealed that they needed full sun to flourish and in his opinion the three large trees located within this area would make that virtually impossible. Mr. Wurm stated that the shade tree would move with the changing of the sun and so they did not believe it would be a problem. He stated that should the need arise; he did not believe the Petitioner would have a problem with substituting the Arborvitaes with another type of planting.
Mr. Weller questioned whether any modifications were being made to the wood fence? Mr. Wright and Mr. Morgan both informed Mr. Weller that the wood fence was not located on the Petitioner's property. Mr. Morgan informed Mr. Weller that the City had issued a violation notice for its repair.
Jane Boyle asked Mr. Morgan how lifeless landscaping would be addressed? Mr. Morgan stated that the Petitioner would have to replace each plant as it dies or come back and request that a different plant be utilized. Mr. Boyle stated that she was concerned about the appearance of the screening and its impact upon adjourning property owners who have to wait five years to achieve a proper screening.
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 Special Use Permit Number 3111 to allow for the construction of a 40,000 square foot building located at 450 West Washington; Uncle Bob's Storage, with the following stipulations: (1) that the current chain link fence surrounding the south and east perimeter of this new building be removed and replaced with a seven (7) foot privacy fence as accepted in the Florissant Zoning Code and approved by the Building Commissioner; (2) that the site lighting shall be a one (1) foot candle average with all lighting on this building directed downward and inward as noted on the lighting plan dated 12/17/07; (3) that customer parking shall consist of a maximum of five (5) parking spaces to be located in the front of the new building with one (1) parking space designated as handicap parking; that all parking spaces shall be striped; (4) that a designated loading area shall be marked, striped and located in the front of the new building; (5) that the trash dumpster shall be enclosed with brick and reinforced with solid metal gates and (6) that all mechanical equipment shall be screened with brick enclosures.
It is further recommended that all of the stipulations contained in this motion shall be complied with by all employees of Uncle Bob's Storage and their agents. Failure to comply with any or all of the stipulations outlined in this motion shall be construed by the City of Florissant administration and the Florissant City Council to be a denial by Planning and Zoning for approval to amend Special Use Permit Number 3111. Seconded by Jane Boyle.
Michael Meyer asked Mr. Ross if the motion should be amended to reflect a minimum of five parking spaces, which would eliminate the need for the Petitioner to obtain approval for more spaces should any parking difficulties arise? Mr. Ross stated that the Petitioner's testimony at the last meeting was that they did not anticipate having such a problem. Mr. Meyer again questioned why the Commission should make a Petitioner go through this whole process again just to add a parking space.
Dick Weller asked Mr. Ross if the motion recommended removal of the chain-link fence? Mr. Ross stated that the motion requests that the chain-link fence be removed and replaced with a (7) foot privacy fence.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, on roll call the Commission voted: Weller no, Boyle yes, --
Daniel Call informed Mr. Ross that he was unsure of what he was voting on and questioned whether the motion was to approve the screening or the whole project? Mr. Ross stated that the motion pertained to the entire project.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, upon the continuation of roll call the Commission voted: Call yes, Gallagher yes, --
Michael Meyer asked Mr. Ross if the motion was to delete the slats in the fence and add a privacy fence? Mr. Ross stated that the motion was to remove the landscaping and the chain-link fence in its entirety, replacing it with a 7 foot privacy fence. Mr. Meyer asked if the motion was inconsistent with the proposal submitted this evening by the Petitioner? Mr. Ross stated that it was.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, upon the continuation of roll call the Commission voted: Meyer no and Ross yes. VOTE: 4 to 2; MOTION CARRIES.MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Item 4 Review the Zoning Code and make
PZ010708-4 recommendations regarding consumer
Credit loan companies.John Morgan advised the Commission that Staff's original Memo and Recommendations dated 01/04/08, had been reviewed by Mr. Hessel and amended as follows:
(A) That the two definitions be combined into one definition utilizing Consumer Loan Company.
(B) That the definitions of Consumer Installment Loan Company and Short-Term Loan Establishment be deleted.
(C) That Consumer Installment Loan Establishments and Pawn Shops be deleted from the permitted uses in B-3 and B-4 Zoning Districts.
(D) That the term Short-Term Loan Establishment be amended to read Consumer Loan Company within the Special Use category of a B-3 District.
In summary, all categories will be grouped together as a Consumer Loan Company and shall fall within the following density requirements of a Consumer Loan Company: No establishment shall be within 2 miles of another and they shall be limited to one per 10,000 people.
At present, this limits the City to five such establishments however, due to annexation there are currently seven operating throughout the City.
Mr. Morgan noted that there were three applications for Consumer Installment Loan Establishments pending before the City which are now being reviewed by Mr. Hessel.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Morgan whether the pending applications would be impacted by this recommendation? Mr. Morgan stated that it would depend upon the determination made by the City Attorney, since it had been staff's position that the companies deal strictly in title loans. Mr. Ross asked if the current Zoning Code permitted Title Loan Companies? Mr. Morgan stated that it did not.
Daniel Call asked for the specific changes within the memo of 01/04/08? Mr. Morgan advised Mr. Call that the City's Memo of 01/07/08 now supersedes the original memo and highlights the following: Deletion of Subsections B(21) and B(73); Consumer Loan Company and Small, Small Loan Company is amended to read Consumer Loan Company under Section K(44) and the remaining portions of the memo are to be eliminated and replaced with the definition of Consumer Loan Company as contained on page 3 of the 01/07/08 memo.
Daniel Call suggested that the Memo of 01/07/08 be forwarded to Council for consideration.
Michael Meyer asked Mr. Morgan if all pawn shops fell within the category of a special use? Mr. Morgan stated that they were a permitted use with numerous restrictions under licensing.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to recommend the following amendments to the Zoning Code: (1) That the definition of Consumer Loan Company be inserted in Section 405.035, per the direction of Mr. Hessel. (2) That the definitions of Consumer Installment Loan Establishment and Short-Term Loan Establishments be deleted. (3) That the terms Consumer Installment Loan Establishments and Pawn Shops be deleted from the permitted uses in B-3 and B-5 Districts; Section 405.125. (4) That the term Short Term Loan Establishment be deleted in Section 405.125, Subsection K(44) and that the term Consumer Loan Company be inserted. (5) That Pawn Shops and Consumer Loan Establishments be deleted from Section 405.130, Subsection B(1), pertaining to the permitted uses in a B-4 District. Seconded by Jane Boyle.
Michael Meyer suggested that the definition of a Pawn Shop and Pawn Broker also be deleted. Mr. Morgan agreed that they should be.
Michael Meyer made a motion to amend the motion as follows: (6) That the definition of a Pawn Shop and Pawn Broker be deleted from the Zoning Code. Seconded by Jane Boyle. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Weller yes, Gallagher yes, Meyer yes Call yes and Boyle yes. Motion carried.NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, January 22, 2008.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING: January 14, 2008; Jane Boyle.
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 Jane Boyle. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
