MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 15, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments Page 2
Under New Business
8454 North Lindbergh
Totally Tan Page 2-4
3220 Parker Road
Dr. Simmons - Oral Surgeon Page 4-8
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Child Daycare Centers Page 8-10
Future Meetings Page 10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, November 15, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., with Jim Ross presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Dick Weller, Jim Ross, Jane Boyle, Paul Stock, Jim Hessel and Lee Baranowski. Also present was Julia Bennett, Court Reporter and Phil Lum, Building Commissioner.
A quorum being present the Chair declared the Planning and Zoning Commission was in session for the transaction of business.
ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENTS
Jim Ross stated that the next order of business would be approval of minutes for the November 1, 2010 meeting. Hearing no objections Mr. Ross made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Jane Boyle, all parties concur. Motion carried.
Jim Ross welcomed new member Jim Hessel to the
Commission.
OLD BUSINESS:
Item 1 8454 North Lindbergh
PZ111510-1 Totally Tan
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 5
Request Recommended Approval of a
Special Use Permit to Allow for a
Tanning Salon in a B-3 Zoning District.
The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, Totally Tan, located at 8454 North Lindbergh; request recommended approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for a tanning salon in a B-3 Zoning District.
Ashley Keeven appeared before the Commission and stated that this salon was previously owned by her mother, who sold it and then repurchased it on October 1st of this year. This is a turn-key operation with the installation of a new sign being the only change.
There are 18 tanning beds with (1) airbrush UV free tan. The hours of operation are Monday through
Thursday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Friday 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Sunday 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if she had been open for business since October 1st? Ms. Keeven stated that she had been.
Phil Lum stated that the owner had been informed of the need for a new Special Use Permit when applying for her business license. He stated that while they could have transferred the previous Special Use Permit it had expired prior to their request for a license. Mr. Lum stated that as a result of the Petitioner's cooperation the City saw no need to shut the business down.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if a license was needed from St. Louis County? Ms. Keeven stated that it has been applied for.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if the business was allowed to remain open without approval from St. Louis County? Mr. Lum stated that under the City regulations the code is very elaborate on the regulations for a tanning salon. So under the City's regulations they would be allowed to have a business license irregardless of the County, which is the obligation of the current owner.
Mr. Ross asked which agency had governing authority over health-related issues? Mr. Lum stated that the City of Florissant delineates health standards in the code and was uncertain of whether an inspection was conducted by the County Health Department.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if the business was operating legally? Mr. Lum stated that with the exception of the Special Use Permit to his knowledge they were.
Lindsey Keeven, owner of Totally Tan, appeared before the Commission.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner when she had ceased operating the business? Ms. Lindsey Keeven stated that she had sold it in 2004, and that she also owns a salon in Hazelwood.
Phil Lum stated that upon inspection of the premises they appeared to be in the same state as the previous operation.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if the only change to the sign was the face? Ms. Lindsey stated that they had replaced the old sign with a new 16 X 24 inch sign.
Mr. Weller questioned Mr. Lum about the absence of a rear exit? Ms. Lindsey stated that the salon was in its original condition.
Mr. Lum stated that the absence of a door was probably premised on the 75 foot travel distance standard utilized by the Fire Department.
Lee Baranowski also expressed a concern about the lack of a rear exit.
Phil Lum stated that he would bring it to Mr. Gettimeier's attention since he did not believe it to be in compliance with the current code.
Ms. Lindsey informed the Commission of a rear door located off of the main hallway.
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 of a Special Use Permit to allow for a tanning salon in a B-3 Zoning District for the property located at 8454 North Lindbergh; Totally Tan, per the plans submitted this evening. Seconded by Paul Stock. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Hessel yes, Baranowski yes, Stock yes, Boyle yes and Weller yes. Motion carried.
Item 2 3220 Parker Road
PZ111510-2 Dr. Simmons - Oral Surgeon
APPROVED - Ward 8
Request Approval to
Replace Existing Fence With 6 Foot
High Black Chain-Link Fence in a
B-5 Zoning District.
The Chair stated Item Number Two on the Agenda, Dr. Simmons - Oral Surgeon, located at 3220 Parker Road; request approval to replace existing fence with 6 foot high black chain-link fence in a B-5 Zoning District.
Mike Bastunas of Fence and Deck Depot appeared before the Commission and stated that this proposal is to install a 6 foot ornamental steel fence from the culvert, located next to Parker Road, to the front corner of the building; a 6 foot black vinyl coated chain-link fence from that corner to the southeast corner of the property with a gate in the middle, and continuing from the southeast corner to the front right hand side of the building where an 18 foot electronic canter lever gate will be installed.
At this point the property goes back 38 feet to a drainage ditch, and another 38 feet to the other side of the ditch into a residential area. Screening of the homes currently is provided by vegetation located on the opposite side of the ditch.
Mr. Bastunas stated that Mr. Lum had pointed out the need for a sight-proof fence in the rear of the property however this fence is only being installed 38 feet from the rear of the property.
Ervin Simmons appeared before the Commission and stated that he has had problems with people from the strip mall dumping and trespassing, so his intent is to enhance security and improve the aesthetic value.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner what was currently on the property? Dr. Simmons stated that there is a fence bordering the creek area which has fallen down. Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner how long he had resided at the property? Dr. Simmons stated since August of 2007.
Mr. Ross asked for the purpose of the gate by the drainage ditch? Mr. Bastunas stated that the intent is to limit access to the creek which is owned by Dr. Simmons. Mr. Ross asked if the owner of the strip mall had a problem with the fence abutting his property? Dr. Simmons stated that he had not discussed it with the owner.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if he would provide the Commission with an explanation of his comments regarding the City Code contained in his report? Mr. Lum stated that the Petitioner had applied for a permit to replace the old fence with wrought iron fencing. However since the property is zoned B-5 he had notified the Petitioner of the following applicable codes: Section 405.220 of the code states that you cannot install a fence without appearing before the Commission. Section 405.225 states that it must be a sight-proof fence, et cetera, made of solid reinforced vinyl or masonry and limited to 6 feet.
Mr. Lum stated that since all of the property located behind this commercially annexed property is residential he had suggested that it might be more prudent to install a solid sight-proof fence along the back portion, screening the building and parking lot from residential view.
Jim Ross asked if there was adequate space for emergency vehicles? Mr. Lum stated that while the 18 foot width is wide enough the permit would have to be reviewed by the Fire Marshal.
Jim Hessel stated that his only concern is the homes located behind the creek which are visible this time of the year. He questioned whether the activity generated from this business would have an impact on neighboring residents? Mr. Bastunas stated that this was a day time only business which closes at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Hessel asked what time the business opened? Dr. Simmons stated 8:30.
Jim Ross noted that the agenda only stated approval of a 6 foot chain-link fence? Mr. Lum stated that the agenda was inaccurate and consideration should be given to the entire property.
Jane Boyle stated that the Commission's policy has always been to install a sight-proof fence in order to screen commercial property from residential, and that should be followed in this case. She also stated that while she understood the concern for security and the fact that this is an office, the property was designed to blend in with the residential area. So in her mind the 6 foot ornamental fence did not seem like a good transition.
Jim Ross concurred with the comments of Commissioner Boyle.
Dick Weller suggested that a 4 foot wrought iron fence be installed on the left hand side of the front, extend to the corner 135 feet, 60 feet and then go solid around the remainder.
Mr. Weller questioned whether this property had the same setback as the strip mall? Mr. Lum stated that the survey lists a setback of 25.24 feet, making it an existing non-conforming lot.
Lee Baranowski agreed that there was a need to comply with the code by installing a sight-proof fence.
Mr. Bastunas stated that they had worked out a second proposal to install a white 6 foot tall vinyl privacy fence, a photo of which has been included in the Commission's packet. The new proposal is as follows:
Wrought Iron Fencing: 25 feet on the front left side of the building; 135 on the side; a 60 foot section and a 20 foot section.
Vinyl Fencing: A 90 foot section; 150 foot section and a 4 foot gate.
Jane Boyle stated that she was still unpleased with the fence along the front of the property.
Paul Stock asked the Petitioner if the 6 foot chain-link fencing and rear gate would be replaced with vinyl? Mr. Bastunas stated that that was correct.
Mr. Bastunas noted that one of the neighboring residential properties had a fence that extended to Parker Road.
Jane Boyle stated that her problem was only with the wrought iron fence being installed in the front yard. Mr. Bastunas stated that the fence would be located on the side yard and not the front.
Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum if the fence could be install on the front of the house? Mr. Lum reviewed Section 405.245 which states,
"All fences associated with institutional uses shall be solid reinforced vinyl/masonry material limited to a maximum height of 6 feet and shall not extend beyond the front building line of the subject property," which would be the 40 foot setback. "The fence may be located on the side and rear property lines. But if the fence is located on a utility easement and maintenance of the utility lines are required in that area, then the property owner is responsible for replacement of the fence if removed."
He stated that the intent of this section is similar to residential where a side yard fence can return to the building. As presented, this Petition is in compliance with Section 405.245 if the Commission grants relief to the front setback line of 40 feet for a non-conforming property. Thus, the question before this Commission is whether or not the fence should return to the building at 40 feet, 25 feet, 3 inches, or not return at all.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if any of his neighbors would take exception to the installation of the fence? Dr. Simmons stated that he did not believe they would.
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 replacement of the existing fence for the property located at 3220 Parker Road in a B-5 Zoning District, per the plans submitted this evening. Seconded by Dick Weller.
Dick Weller suggested that the motion contain the type of material for the fence.
The motion and second were withdraw and Jim Ross made a motion to approve replacement of the existing fence for the property located at 3220 Parker Road in a B-5 Zoning District, per the plans submitted this evening and the following stipulation: that the fence be constructed per the revised plans.
6 Foot Wrought Iron Fencing: 25 feet on the front left side of the building; 135 on the side; a 60 foot section and a 20 foot section.
6 Foot Vinyl Fencing: A 90 foot section; 150 foot section and a 4 foot gate.
The motion was seconded by Paul Stock.
Jane Boyle stated that she was torn over the issue because she understood the issues surrounding the need for the fence, but the 85 feet of wrought iron across the fence still caused her some concern.
Lee Baranowski stated that from the fence between his house and his neighbor's house is a chain-link fence, and that is probably what is on all the houses located west of this property. He stated that he had just viewed a home with wrought iron fencing and in his opinion it looked very nice.
Paul Stock advised Ms. Boyle that Londoff Chevrolet had installed wrought iron fencing along the parameter of its property.
On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Hessel yes, Baranowski yes, Stock yes, Boyle no and Weller yes. VOTE: 5 TO 1; MOTION CARRIES.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Item 3 Child Daycare Centers
Phil Lum stated that at the last meeting it was determined that there was a need to send a shorter version of the 20 page document and his October 28th memo represents the Executive Summary or condensed version.
Jim Ross stated that in his opinion the summary did not provide enough information, although more than likely the effectiveness of the proposal will be based on the presentations of Mr. Lum and Mr. Gettimeier.
Paul Stock suggested that the memo be attached to the 20 page document in the event Council decides to give further consideration to the proposal.
Jane Boyle asked how the documents would be presented to the President of City Council?
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if he would be willing to draft a cover letter for him to sign? Mr. Lum stated that he would be glad to do so, however his suggestion would be that the item be placed on their Executive Session.
Jane Boyle stated that while she respects the conversations conducted with Mr. English, her belief is that if this Commission is truly sending something forward that it values, it should be presented to all Council members. Therefore, her suggestion would be to provide the material to the Clerk and as a courtesy verbally inform the Chair of the impending action.
Jim Ross informed the Commission that the Chair sets the agenda.
Dick Weller suggested that Mr. Ross take the materials and hand-deliver them to the Chair.
Lee Baranowski questioned why the 20 page document had not been revised, eliminating the rationale and suggested that it not be included in the final submission.
Phil Lum stated that he had some difficulty drafting the memo because some sections, such as Item Number 4 were so in depth that it was hard to determine what to eliminate.
So the paragraph headings were put into one item called Performance Characteristics which can be covered during the presentation, but not in a short memo.
Jim Ross suggested that the materials be sent to the City Clerk with a request that a public hearing be scheduled.
Dick Weller disagreed with the request for a public hearing and suggested that the materials be sent to the President.
Phil Lum stated that the risk of going directly to a public hearing is that for the most part the public does not understand this Commission's responsibility to study zoning issues and report them to Council. Therefore typically when proposals are presented they are viewed as an issue that has already been adopted and placed into law with changes forthcoming.
Mr. Lum informed the Commission that presentations made during Executive Session range from five minutes to a half an hour depending on the size of the agenda.
Jane Boyle suggested that the Commission's desire to make an oral presentation be included in the cover letter to Council.
Phil Lum stated that this proposal, if enacted, constitutes a change of the code and therefore should be presented first in Executive Session. If Council deems that a proposal is significant a Council member is designated to sponsor the Bill and review the recommendations in more detail.
The Commission concluded that a cover letter, along with the 20 page document and condensed version be submitted to the City Clerk for placement on the Executive Summary agenda in January 2011.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments?
Resident Elizabeth Bowling, of 2915 Derhake Road
appeared before the Commission and thanked them for dedicating extra time on an issue she believes needs to be brought to the attention of Florissant residents.
She stated that she had been one of the individuals who spoke against the proposition for the child day care center that is now operating in Plaza Madrid and supports the movement to bring this to Council's attention.
Ms. Bowling suggested use of the public comment session held before the General Council Meeting to state her feelings about the crop of storefront child day care center businesses, in hopes of making the community aware of this issue and the fact that it has been brought to the attention of Council. She stated that she would be glad to do whatever she could to ensure that this issue does not just go away in the event Council decides not to act upon the recommendations.
Jim Ross thanked Ms. Bowling for her comments and agreed that concurrent messages to the public and Council might be a good idea.
Dick Weller stated that personally he did not think it would be a good strategy to utilize Ms. Bowling at this early stage of the game.
Jim Ross stated that his belief is that this Commission has put so much time and effort into this issue that he would hate to see it die simply because Council deemed it to be unimportant.
Ms. Bowling stated that she wants her involvement on behalf of something she feels would bring betterment to the City to be as helpful and effective as possible.
Phil Lum informed the Commission that he would continue to study relevant information needed for his presentation to Council, i.e., the number of child daycare centers within the City, their size, et cetera.
Item 4 Future Meetings
The next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting will be held Monday, December 6, 2010.
Paul Stock is scheduled to represent the Commission at the next 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 Jane Boyle. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
