MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 18, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments Page 2
Under Old Business
700 St. Judith
Engelmeyer Enterprise, LLC Page 2-5
2525 North Highway 67
Taco Bell Page 5-7
1491 Dunn Road
Taco Bell Page 7-8
8400 North Lindbergh Blvd.
Firestone Service Station Page 8-11
Under New Business
462 Howdershell
Sunworks Tanning Salon, LLC Page 11-12
2548 North Highway 67
Family Dollar Stores Page 12-14
8141 North Lindbergh Blvd.
Fish & Chips Page 14-15
250 North Highway 67
Dierbergs Florissant, Inc. Page 15-18
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Future Meetings Page 18-19
City Attorney Page 19-20
Additional Training Page 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Commission Packets Page 20
Child Daycare Centers Page 21
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, April 18, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., with Jim Ross presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Jim Ross, Paul Stock, Daniel Call, Jane Boyle, Dick Weller, Lee Baranowski and Jim Hessel. 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 March 24, 2011 and April 4, 2011 meetings. Hearing no objections Jim Ross made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Jim Hessel, all parties concur and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
Item 1 700 St. Judith
PZ030711-2 Engelmeyer Enterprise, LLC
MOTION FAILS - Ward 5
Request Recommended Approval to
Rezone Property From R-4 Residential
to B-3 Extensive Business District.
The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, Engelmeyer Ent., LLC, request recommended approval to rezone property from R-4 Residential to B-3 Extensive Business District.
John Engelmeyer appeared before the Commission and stated that the property was located in Ward 7 and not Ward 5 as indicated on the agenda.
Mr. Engelmeyer stated that he had read the minutes from the prior meeting and based on the comments adduced he would merely suggest that the Commission deny his petition and allow him the opportunity to present his Petition to Council.
He stated that although he understands that the change in zoning makes the property accessible to 102 uses, his only desire is to move his office, which is low-profile and unobtrusive down the street from his home.
Mr. Engelmeyer stated that the property backs up to a commercial district and last night he parked his car on the other side of St. Judith opposite the street which caused quite a commotions because people use this area as a cut-through to bypass the stoplight. He stated that he had tried addressing this issue with the Traffic Commission several months ago, who alluded that it was the County's position and not Florissant's. However a conversation with Scott from St. Louis County also rendered no results.
Jim Ross informed the Petitioner that the Commission's only concern was the request to rezone this property. Mr. Engelmeyer stated that he simply wanted to provide the Commission with a little background in terms of why he feels that this property can be rezoned. He stated that he had talked to all the property owners in the area informing them of his intentions and has not heard one objection.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if he had discussed this matter with Mr. Lum? Mr. Engelmeyer stated that he had talked with him prior to the first meeting where he learned about the setback guidelines. Mr. Ross stated that in his opinion the problem with rezoning this piece of property is that doing so would constitute spot zoning. And since the B-3 zoning would follow this property once you retire or close the business all of the 102 uses would come into play, which would be unfair to the residents on St. Judith.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if he had completed the survey requested at the last meeting? Mr. Engelmeyer stated that he has contacted the individual to perform a survey, but did not want to expend the funds if he was going to be denied. He stated that he certainly understood spot zoning and if he could do this any other way he would because he has no desire to encumber his neighborhood with 102 possibilities. He then questioned whether he could operate the business under a Special Use Permit?
Phil Lum stated that a Special Use Permit in an R-4 District was not permitted except for a life care center or a nursing home.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if he would be
living at this residence? Mr. Engelmeyer stated that he already owned a home down the street.
Dick Weller informed the Petitioner that the proposal was just not conducive to good planning for the City.
Jane Boyle stated the following rational behind her decision not support the Petition.
1. The proposal does not conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
2. Spot zoning in a residential neighborhood changes the character of a residential street.
3. Rezoning this property negatively affects the integrity of Florissant's residential housing stock and plan.
4. Approval of this Petition would set a precedent for other neighborhoods to follow.
Lee Baranowski, Paul Stock, Daniel Call and Jim Hessel all agreed with the aforementioned comments.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner? In light of the testimony that has been presented Jim Ross made a motion to deny approval to rezone the property located at 700 St. Judith from an R-4 Residential to a B-3 Extensive Business District. Seconded by Paul Stock.
The second was withdrawn by Paul Stock and Jim Ross made a motion to recommend approval to rezone the property located at 700 St. Judith from an R-4 Residential to a B-3 Extensive Business District. Seconded by Paul Stock. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross no, Stock no, Boyle no, Call no, Hessel no, Weller no and Baranowski no. MOTION FAILS.
Item 2 2525 North Highway 67
PZ120610-1 Taco Bell
MOTION FAILS - Ward 9
Request Recommended Approval to
Amend Ordinance No. 5578 to Allow
for Exterior Renovations in a B-5
Zoning District.
The Chair stated Item Number Two on the Agenda,
Taco Bell located at 2525 North Highway 67; request recommended approval to amend Ordinance No. 5578 to allow for exterior renovations in a B-5 Zoning District.
Randy Lindsey appeared before the Commission and stated that this is an existing brick building where exterior and interior renovations are being proposed.
INTERIOR: Rest rooms upgraded to ADA standards, along with new core package modifications.
EXTERIOR: Sidewalks upgraded per ADA standards.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum for an explanation of the following language found on page 2 of the Staff Report;
"Renderings were provided at the last meeting for this location and a typical flying arch photo of a similar installation"?
Phil Lum stated that there were just a few renderings of the Taco Bell flying arch which is a lit arch above the entryway. There were also photographs of the menu board and headache bar. Mr. Ross stated that he had not received the photographs. Mr. Lum stated that the pictures were provided in one packet, along with a memo stating that they were for both Petitions.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the brick exterior would be covered with EIFS? Mr. Lindsey stated that the towers would be covered with EIFS based on the new prototype. Mr. Ross informed the Petitioner that this would be in violation of the City's Masonry Code. Mr. Lindsey stated that he had talked to Mr. Lum and changed the cultured stone on the legs of the arch to brick however his interpretation of the code was that the brick only had to go up to a certain height. Mr. Ross asked if Taco Bell was requesting the EIFS? Mr. Lindsey stated that their desire is to utilize EIFS on the tower and a portion of the legs.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if there were any changes on the dimensions of the roof? Mr. Lindsey stated that the tower is approximately 21 feet, 6 1/2 inches to the top of the flying arch. Mr. Weller asked if any changes were being made to exterior or parking lot lighting? Mr. Lindsey stated that no changes were anticipated. Mr. Weller questioned whether the sign on top of the bell would be lit internally? Mr. Lindsey stated that it was.
Jane Boyle stated that while she admires the flying arch she would not be able to support changes that did not conform to the City's Masonry Ordinance.
Jim Ross questioned whether these were cosmetic or functional changes? Mr. Lindsey stated that they were cosmetic changes to reflect the new prototype.
Daniel Call asked the Petitioner if all water would drain below ground? Mr. Lindsey stated that it would. Mr. Call questioned whether any of the brick would be painted? Mr. Lindsey stated that there would be no painting of the brick.
Mr. Call asked Mr. Lum whether the Petitioner's interpretation regarding the use of EIFS was correct? Mr. Lum stated that the brick Ordinance is very clear in that all walls in the district must be masonry, which does not include cultured stone. However the Petitioner can propose any other material which can be approved by Council over and above any recommendations by Planning and Zoning.
Jim Hessel asked the Petitioner if the original Petition included a Pizza Hut? Mr. Lindsey stated that Pizza Hut is being removed from all Taco Bell locations.
Mr. Hessel concurred with the comments expressed by Commissioner Boyle.
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 No. 5578 to allow for exterior renovations in a B-5 Zoning District for the property located at 2525 North Highway 67; Taco Bell per the suggested motion dated April 18, 2011. Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross no, Stock no, Boyle no, Call yes, Hessel no, Weller no and Baranowski no. VOTE: 6 TO 1; MOTION FAILS.
Item 3 1491 Dunn Road
PZ120610-2 Taco Bell
MOTION FAILS - Ward 7
Request Recommended Approval to
Amend Ordinance No. 5469 to Allow
for Exterior Renovations in a B-5
Zoning District.
The Chair stated Item Number Three on the Agenda,
Taco Bell located at 1491 Dunn Road; request recommended approval to amend Ordinance No. 5469 to allow for exterior renovations in a B-5 Zoning District.
Randy Lindsey appeared before the Commission and stated that this is an existing brick building where exterior and interior renovations are being proposed.
INTERIOR: Rest rooms upgraded to ADA standards, along with new core package modifications.
EXTERIOR: Sidewalks upgraded per ADA standards.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the brick in this Petition was being covered with EIFS? Mr. Lindsey stated that the both proposals were the same.
Daniel Call noted that the previous issues raised concerning the illumination of the archway and drainage have been corrected on the new plans.
Phil Lum stated that the interior remodeling plans were submitted as a courtesy to this Commission.
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 No. 5469 to allow for exterior renovations in a B-5 Zoning District for the property located at 1491 Dunn Road; Taco Bell per the suggested motion dated April 18, 2011. Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross no, Stock no, Boyle no, Call yes, Hessel no, Weller no and Baranowski no. VOTE: 6 TO 1; MOTION FAILS.
Item 4 8400 North Lindbergh Blvd.
PZ030711-2 Firestone Service Station
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 3
Request Recommended Approval to
Replace the Existing B-5, Remove
Existing Gas Station and Allow for
an Automotive Service Garage.
The Chair stated Item Number Four on the Agenda, Firestone Service Station located at 8400 North Lindbergh Boulevard; request recommended approval to replace the existing B-5, remove existing gas station and allow for an automotive service garage.
David Kochalka appeared before the Commission and stated that they have worked with staff while making revisions and have read staff's suggested motion in which they take no exceptions.
REVISIONS
1. Clarification on the location of the pylon sign. One sign is shown on the north side of the property that is within the setback.
2. The Petitioner has worked with their sign vendor and staff to meet code for all signage.
Phil Lum stated that the only sign limitations staff found is that wall signs be limited to 100 square feet and that identification signs can include the name of the establishment, address and what type of products and services are offered.
Jim Ross stated that in the previous minutes the legality of using identification signs to identify products and services had been raised and determined to be prohibited. Mr. Lum apologized for the confusion and stated that this is only prohibited within the Historic Business District.
REVISIONS
3. Parking stalls increased to 9 X 20.
4. Photometric Plan submitted to staff and meets code.
5. The owner of the property has submitted a letter to staff indicating that QT will be moving out of this location as soon as the Hazelwood Store is open.
Phil Lum advised the Commission that the letter was presented at the last meeting.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if any revisions had been made to the trash enclosure? Mr. Kochalka stated that it has been modified to meet the code.
Lee Baranowski stated that he was still unable to accept the 25 foot pole sign and felt that the Petitioner was taking advantage of his neighbors.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if there had been two pole signs? Mr. Kochalka stated that previously two signs had been shown on the plans. Mr. Weller suggested that the pylon sign be reduced in size.
Jane Boyle and Jim Ross both agreed with the comments of Commissioners Baranowski and Weller regarding the size of the sign. Mr. Kochalka stated that there are neighboring businesses with similar signs; that the sign is tasteful, represents the company's brand and matches the architecture of the building.
Phil Lum suggested that the Commission include a stipulation within their motion regarding the size of the sign.
Jim Hessel asked Mr. Lum if the sign as proposed met the City's code? Mr. Lum stated that the sign met the 25 foot limitation and that there were no limits with respect to the width of a sign.
Lee Baranowski recommended that the pole sign be limited to 6 X 10 square feet.
Dick Weller recommended that the height of the sign be reduced to 18 feet.
Mr. Kochalka reminded the Commission that the signage met the City's Code therefore it was difficult for them to accept these recommendations. He stated that this seems to be sort of an un-level playing field where other businesses have been permitted to install this type of sign and now they are being restricted. Mr. Kochalka concluded that while he understands that this is a concern he does not believe it is his client's responsibility to take on problems associated with the code.
Daniel Call stated that while he understands the concerns expressed he would agrees that this is not the place to start the fight. The bottom line is that the sign meets the current City Code.
Commissioner Hessel and Phil Lum both concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Call.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if the Commission could eliminate the sign from their recommendation? Mr. Lum suggested that the recommendation include the Commission's concerns regarding the signage.
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 replace the existing B-5, remove the existing gas station and allow for an automotive service garage for the property located at 8400 North Lindbergh Boulevard; Firestone Service Station per the suggested motion dated April 18, 2011. Seconded by Paul Stock. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Stock yes, Boyle yes, Call yes; the Petitioner has addressed all issues and the sign meets all of Florissant's requirements, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski no; the sign is a distraction and is a safety concern for motorist traveling along this section of Lindbergh Boulevard. VOTE: 6 TO 1; MOTION CARRIES.
NEW BUSINESS:
Item 5 462 Howdershell
PZ040411-1 Sunworks Tanning Salon, LLC
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 3
Request Recommended Approval of a
Special Use Permit for a Tanning
Salon.
The Chair stated Item Number Five on the Agenda, Sunworks Tanning Salon located at 462 Howdershell; request recommended approval of a Special Use Permit for a tanning salon.
Jennifer Moonier appeared before the Commission and stated that her current plan is to purchase an existing tanning salon located at 2127 Charbonier and relocate it to this location.
The facility will include 8 tanning beds, one mystic spray machine, one ADA accessible rest room and a storage room.
Vinyl signage will be purchased to cover the existing sign located on the parapet which is 8 feet in length and 2 feet in height.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the Howdershell location was currently occupied? Ms. Moonier stated that it was vacant. Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if she would be responsible for the storage and removal of trash? Ms. Moonier stated that she would be responsible and that her plan is to purchase a 96 gallon trash can since the amount of waste will be limited. Trash will be removed on a weekly basis.
Phil Lum advised the Commission that trash enclosure screening would not be in effect if there is a 95 gallon roll-off container located behind the building. Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if he had seen a picture of the proposed signage? Mr. Lum stated that he had not.
Ms. Moonier stated that her intent was to apply for a face change permit.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner for the hours of operation? Ms. Moonier stated Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Saturdays 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Sundays 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Mr. Ross asked for the number of employees at the facility? Ms. Moonier stated that there would be two; one full-time and one part-time.
Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum for an explanation of the following language contained in Staff's Report;
"Ownership of another tanning organization will change hands with this proposed Special Use."
Phil Lum stated that the meaning of it is that one business will go away and another business initiated at a different location. He stated that the Petitioner is an employee of the tanning salon located on Charbonier, however this salon will continue to operate through the spring.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if Sunworks was a franchise? Ms. Moonier stated that it was not.
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 for a tanning salon for the property located at 462 Howdershell; Sunworks Tanning Salon, per the drawings submitted this evening. Seconded by Jim Hessel. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Stock yes, Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes.
Item 6 2548 North Highway 67
PZ040411-2 Family Dollar Stores
APPROVED - Ward 9
Request Approval to Install a
Wall Sign Over 40 Square Feet.
The Chair stated Item Number Six on the Agenda, Family Dollar Stores located at 2548 North Highway 67; request approval to install a wall sign over 40 square feet.
Joe Phillips appeared before the Commission and stated that Family Dollar will be leasing a 150 foot wide unit at this location and an 82 foot cloud sign is being requested to accommodate and compliment this large unit. The sign represents 3 1/2 percent of the square footage on the leased unit.
The sign is internally illuminated and the molded cabinet with florescent tubes will essentially be the standard on all of the Dollar General Stores throughout the region.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if his client would be amenable to reducing the sign? Mr. Phillips stated that he believes they have performed due diligence in selecting the location and size of the sign and did not believe they would be willing to do so.
Lee Baranowski asked the Petitioner if he could provide him with the equivalent number of storefronts that Dollar General would be occupying? Mr. Phillips stated that it was approximately six. Mr. Baranowski asked if this would be the only sign on the building? Mr. Phillips stated that this would be the only sign other than the tenant panel on the marquee.
Dick Weller stated that he understood the request since there is a possibility that you could have four or five 40 square foot signs if the units were occupied by individual tenants.
Jane Boyle stated that in her opinion the sign was too large and therefore she was not in favor of approving the Petition.
Daniel Call stated that in his opinion the sign fits very well with the background that it is going to sit upon.
Jim Hessel agreed that the sign looked good however it was somewhat difficult to approve something that is twice the size of the City's Code.
Phil Lum read the paragraph under Section 520.070 into the record;
"Under unusual or special circumstances the Building Commissioner may permit the erection of signs up to 100 square feet in areas not otherwise permitted, but the applicant shall first obtain approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission for erection and maintenance of such non-conforming signs. The fact that a non-conforming sign was constructed prior to shall not be considered an unusual or special circumstance."
Mr. Lum stated that while the Sign Code's intent may be for every 20 foot store front to have a 40 square foot sign, he believes that the need for the non-conforming sign has been well explained.
Jim Hessel asked Mr. Lum if the Commission's approval of this size would remain with this location continually? Mr. Lum stated that it would only apply to this tenant.
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 installation of a wall sign over 40 square feet for the property located at 2548 North Highway 67; Family Dollar Stores, per the testimony and drawing presented this evening. Seconded by Paul Stock. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross no, Stock yes, Boyle no, Call yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. VOTE: 5 TO 2; MOTION CARRIES.
Item 7 8141 North Lindbergh Blvd.
PZ040411-3 Fish & Chips
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 3
Request Recommended Approval for a
Special Use Permit to Allow the
Operation of a Carry-Out Restaurant.
The Chair stated Item Number Seven on the Agenda, Fish & Chips located at 8141 North Lindbergh Boulevard; request recommended approval for a Special Use Permit to allow the operation of a carry-out restaurant.
Shehadh Farajat appeared before the Commission.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if this location was currently vacant? Mr. Farajat stated that it was. Mr. Ross asked if any grease traps would be installed and if so how the grease be disposed of? Mr. Farajat stated that grease would be contained inside the trash enclosure and picked up weekly by a contractor. Mr. Ross questioned whether all roof-top equipment would be screened? Mr. Farajat stated that it would be screened per code by the company installing the equipment.
Lee Baranowski and Paul Stock both advised Mr. Lum that they had not received information for several items on the agenda.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if the door for 4143 led to the basement? Mr. Farajat stated that it did, however he did not have access to this area.
Jim Hessel asked the Petitioner if there would be a public rest room? Mr. Farajat stated that there would not be.
Commissioners Stock and Ross stated that they did not have a clear understanding of where the grease would be stored and how it would be disposed of.
Jane Boyle stated that once the petition is approved it would be the responsibility of staff to ensure that there is adequate screening prior to the issuance of a permit. Mr. Lum concurred with Commissioner Boyle's comments.
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 the operation of a carry-out restaurant for the property located at 8141 North Lindbergh Boulevard; Fish & Chips, per the documents submitted this evening and the following stipulation: that grease containers and all rooftop equipment be adequately screened. Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Stock no, Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. VOTE: 6 TO 1; MOTION CARRIES.
Item 8 250 North Highway 67
PZ041811-1 Dierbergs Florissant, Incorporated
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 3
Request Approval of Exterior
and Reduction of Outlot Building D
(Previously Approved by the Commission
on February 19, 2008).
The Chair stated Item Number Eight on the Agenda, Dierbergs Florissant, Incorporated, located at 250 North Highway 67; request approval of exterior and reduction of Out-lot Building D.
Mark Martin and Terry Dowdy appeared before the Commission.
Mr. Martin stated that he has read Staff's Report and believes that the report in its entirety is accurate. He then read the following language contained within the report into the record:
"If approved, the Masonry Ordinance indicates 100 percent of all walls shall be masonry. The signage board areas should also be masonry or the signage areas only may be referred to Council for approval for non-masonry wall areas so that both buildings can match."
Mr. Martin stated that in 2008 this Commission granted approval to build two full masonry buildings, with the exception of the EIFS sign bands. These buildings were to be built in two phases; Building C has been built and leased. Building D represents the second phase and is the crux of tonight's proposal.
Mr. Dowdy stated that in the original proposal Building C was constructed of full masonry with an EIFS sign band area of 1,261 square feet. Building D will have the same signage across the front and additional sign bands along the east and west elevations. The overall square footage for Building D is smaller than what was originally approved; 5400 square feet versus 3400 square feet, and the EIFS sign band area has been reduced from 1,261 square feet to 1,051 square feet.
Mr. Martin stated that the same materials would be used for both buildings however to prevent encroachment on Lindbergh and the obstruction of visibility Building D has been rotated. The front of the building containing the EIFS sign band will now face the parking lot. Mr. Martin stated that the Petitioner is actively pursuing leases for two tenants in Building D and noted the possibility of both tenants seeking additional signage on the end of the building; (similar requests were granted for T-Mobile and Clarkson Eye Care).
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if he could provide any information about the potential tenants for this building? Mr. Martin stated that the building could potentially be occupied by a restaurant and a mobile phone company.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum when the Masonry Ordinance had been approved in its current form? Mr. Lum stated that it was prior to the 2008 meeting.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner why the wall band areas did not comply with the City's Ordinance? Mr. Martin stated that the concept is to have two matching buildings. And in the use of signs it is better for the landlord to have an EIFS backing because of the holes that are drilled in the walls to install signs. He also noted that EIFS is a better product in the long-run for maintenance, less leakage, and the contrast provided by utilizing EIFS is routinely requested by tenants.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if the Petitioner's request for an EIFS sign band was within the parameters of the code? Mr. Lum stated that the short answer is no, as demonstrated by language contained in the report and quoted by Mr. Martin. Mr. Lum stated that he is unable to find the definition of a sign band in the Zoning Ordinance and that the only entity who can grant relief to the Ordinance is City Council.
Mr. Martin advised the Commission that they were not asking to change anything that had previously been approved.
Lee Baranowski asked the Petitioner if the trash enclosure would be shared by both tenants? Mr. Martin stated that the enclosure would contain two, 6 foot dumpster boxes. Mr. Baranowski asked if there was a possibility that the restaurant would require a drive-through area? Mr. Martin stated that the current tenant was not requesting one.
Jane Boyle stated that she did not believe that the design of Building D was the same as Building C, and as a result she would be unwilling to support anything that had this much EIFS.
Daniel Call explained that putting brick on top of a glass front is really cost-prohibitive because the structural support needed to replace the EIFS with brick is astronomical. He stated that personally he had no problem with the request since it was approved in 2008 and premised on the need to maintain continuity.
Paul Stock stated that he was somewhat torn as a result of the code requirements and his experience in construction for 35 years. Mr. Stock noted that EIFS is commonly used for the reasons previously stated by the Petitioner. And while it may not be the best way to go, there are times when EIFS is considered to be the best product.
Mr. Stock stated that his personal belief is that the issue should be decided by City Council.
Mr. Martin questioned whether the Commission's position was to either remove the EIFS or proceed to Council? Jim Ross stated that he would be willing to approve the Petition if the EIFS was removed.
Jane Boyle stated that her main concern was the rotation of the building where the sides now face Lindbergh.
Mr. Martin advised the Commission that they would be willing to remove the EIFS from east and west elevations of the building.
Dick Weller stated that he loved the Masonry Ordinance as well the proposal presented this evening.
Daniel Call asked the Petitioner if the windows would also be removed? Mr. Martin stated that the windows would remain and a bigger beam installed to support them.
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 exterior and reduction of Outlot Building D, previously approved by the Commission on February 19, 2008, for the property located at 250 North Highway 67; Dierbergs Florissant, inc., per the plans submitted this evening and the following stipulation: that the EIFS be removed from the east and west elevations and that the north and south elevations remain as depicted. Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Stock yes, Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel no, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. VOTE: 6 TO 1; MOTION CARRIES.
[Transcriber's Note: The agenda reflects that the aforementioned item required approval by this Commission and not a recommendation to Council.]
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Item 9 Future Meetings
The next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will be held on Monday, May 2, 2011.
The next City Council Meeting will be held on April 25, 2011 Jane Boyle is scheduled to represent the Commission.
Item 10 City Attorney
Jim Ross stated that one of the items discussed in their closed session this evening was a desire to utilize the assistance of the City Attorney on an as-needed basis, with the cost of said services being absorbed by the developer.
Dick Weller questioned why the interpretations provided by Mr. Lum were not sufficient? Mr. Ross cited the example of Wal-Mart and stated that in his opinion it would have been helpful to have had legal assistance in complicated matters such as these.
Lee Baranowski asked what would happen if the developer refused to pay the attorney's fee? Mr. Ross stated that it would be part and parcel of the entire fee process.
Phil Lum stated that he believes the words used by the City Attorney were "blanket rule for projects of a certain size," and that the entire process would have to be written into an ordinance.
Jim Hessel stated that this would be another tool in the Commission's tool belt that could be utilized whenever the need arises.
Commissioners Boyle and Stock both agreed that this would be a benefit to the Commission.
Jane Boyle also noted that the City Attorney probably already had access or knowledge of an existing ordinance that could be used to establish the appropriate fees.
Dick Weller stated that he did not want this studious Commission to be intimidated by an attorney.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to request that the City Attorney be permitted to appear at Planning and Zoning Meetings on an as-needed basis; that Mr. Lum forward the request to the City Clerk and that the City Clerk forward the request to Council for final review and determination. Seconded by Paul Stock. All parties concur and the motion carried.
Item 11 Additional Training
Jim Ross stated that another item of discussion was the possibility of receiving additional training.
Jim Hessel stated that as the newest member any training he could receive would definitely be helpful.
Jane Boyle concurred with the comments of Commissioner Hessel.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion requesting Mr. Lum to contact the City Clerk in order to determine whether funding could be allocated for a single, two hour training session. Seconded by Jim Hessel. All parties concur and the motion carried.
Item 12 Commission Packets
Jim Ross stated that while the Commission is aware that the clerk assigned to this task has been out sick and wishes her a speedy recovery, the fact that there has been a series of missing information in the Commission Packets has been somewhat problematic. He then requested that the packets be reviewed for accuracy prior to their distribution.
Phil Lum apologized to the Commission and stated that his current practice had been to inspect only one packet with the presumption that all others would be assembled accordingly.
He noted that some errors are a result of the documents being sent upstairs to the copy center however since the Commission has also expressed a desire to receive their packets earlier he would have additional time to inspect all packets and ensure that they are distributed in a satisfactory manner.
Jim Ross also requested that each item on the agenda be separated individually. Mr. Lum informed Mr. Ross that the current process is to place a rubber band around each item.
Item 13 Child Daycare Centers
Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum if the Commission's study and recommendations on child daycare centers was still before City Council? Mr. Lum stated that his belief is that the item had been tabled.
Jim Ross stated that every time he has approached a Council Member about this issue he was advised that Planning and Zoning no longer had jurisdiction over the matter and was excluded from any further discussions.
Jane Boyle stated that it was her understanding that Council's intent was to schedule a work session to discuss the matter in more detail. She then questioned whether there was some way to suggest that this issue be revisited? Mr. Lum stated that staff would be willing to send a reminder to Council.
Lee Baranowski suggested that the best approach might be to wait until the new administration gets into office.
Jim Ross informed Commissioner Baranowski that the new administration was scheduled to commence on April 25th.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion requesting Mr. Lum to send a memorandum to the City Clerk asking that City Council resume discussions on the Child Daycare Center study and recommendations submitted by Planning and Zoning. Seconded by Jim Hessel. All parties concur and the 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 Jim Hessel. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
