MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 7, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments Page 2
Under Old Business
1723 & 1735 S. New Florissant Road
Kydz Kastle Page 2-3
Under New Business
400 North Highway 67
Walgreen's Page 3-6
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Future Meetings Page 6-7
Review and Make Recommendations to
City Council to Correct the Code
Regarding Definition of "Family" Page 7-8
Child Day Care Centers Page 8
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, February 7, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., with Jim Ross presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Jim Ross, Jane Boyle, Lee Baranowski, Daniel Call 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 announced that Dick Weller will be out of town for the month of February.
Phil Lum announced that he had received an email from Paul Stock asking to be excused from tonight's meeting.
Jim Ross stated that the next order of business would be approval of minutes for the January 18, 2010 meeting.
Phil Lum stated that the phonetic spelling of "Cigino's" should be amended to read "Cugino's".
Jim Ross made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Jane Boyle, all parties concur and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
Item 1 1721 & 1735 South New Florissant Road
PZ01811-4 Kydz Kastle
CONTINUED - Ward 5
Request Recommended Approval of a Special
Use Permit to Allow for a Child Day Care
Center in a B-3 Zoning District.
The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, Kydz Kastle located at 1721 & 1735 South New Florissant Road; request recommended approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for a child day care center in a B-3 Zoning District.
Jim Ross stated that the Petitioner has
requested that this Petition be continued to the February 22, 2011 meeting.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to continue this Petition to February 22nd. Seconded by Daniel Call. All parties concur and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Item 2 400 North Highway 67
PZ020711-2 Walgreen's
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 5
Request Recommended Approval of a
Drive-Through Facility, Additional
Landscaping and Masonry Trash
Enclosure in a B-3 Zoning District.
The Chair stated Item Number Two on the Agenda, Walgreen's, located at 400 North Highway 67; request recommended approval of a drive-through facility, additional landscaping and masonry trash enclosure in a B-3 Zoning District.
Brandin Harp of Civil Engineering Design Consultants and Nick Telowitz Project Architect appeared before the Commission.
Mr. Harp stated that the Petition is for improvements on the south side of the existing facility.
Existing conditions within this area consist of exposed block, a drive lane, parking and a sidewalk along Washington Street. The proposal seeks to do the following:
1. Remove 30 feet of the existing building.
The new facade for the 30 feet being removed will consist of a yellow brick, accented with gray to match the existing facility. (Brick samples were presented for the Commission's review.)
2. Add 15 feet of green space between the right-of-way lane and new pavement.
3. Utilize the existing curb cut onto Washington Street.
4. Add a drive lane for the drive-up pharmacy.
5. Add a concrete loading area to the rear of the building facing the creek, along with a masonry trash enclosure and compactor.
6. Replace existing signage with new signage.
Mr. Telowitz stated that an area of the current facade will be raised over the entrance doors and the painted brick and plaster that now exists will remain and be repainted.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if they were aware of the fact that the parking being eliminated with this proposal is typically used for the Valley of the Flowers? Mr. Harp stated that they had increased the ratio of parking with the removal of 30 feet of the building.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if he could explain the statement made in Staff's Recommendations concerning 10 percent of the total parking? Mr. Lum stated that this is a non-conforming parking lot constructed prior to 1983. As the Building Commissioner it is his obligation to ensure that the Petitioner meets the Parking Ordinance, although in this particular case there is not enough property to do so. The figure of 10 percent as used in the Code requires that if the Petitioner is unable to increase the number of parking spaces by 10 percent then the Building Commissioner is required to ensure that compliance falls as near as possible.
Further, under C-1, Comment 1(a), it states 365 existing parking spaces, yet the total number of parking has been reduced to 353. The parking ratio is based on total square footage of the building and since the Petition seeks to remove 30 feet of the building the ratio has increased from 3.90 to 4.04 cars per thousand. This represents an increased ratio of parking even though all the spaces on the south are being eliminated.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if new landscaping would be located where there is current parking today? Mr. Harp stated that that was correct.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if the addition of landscaping would reduce the parking ratio? Mr. Lum stated that it did not.
Jim Ross advised the Petitioner of his concern for customers trying to get in and out of the drive-through with traffic coming head-on. Mr. Harp stated there would be a two-way drive lane outside of the drive-through which is the typical drive-through design. Therefore cars turning into the drive-through lane will have to yield to any oncoming vehicles. He added that stacking accommodates six cars in the drive-through without interrupting the east/west traffic area.
Mr. Ross stated that the problem with this shopping center is that it is used as a cut-through to dodge the light, which may create more traffic than anticipated.
Mr. Ross stated that with this being such a busy intersection he would question whether the design had given any consideration to the heavy volume of traffic within this area? Mr. Harp stated that they had analyzed the design with Auto-Turn Software. Since this is a signalized intersection cars coming in can make a 180 degree turn or go straight through. In addition, the current drive lane is right up on the back of the sidewalk with very little radius points at each side. This design offsets the 15 feet to be in accordance with the B-3 Commercial Zoning Code and creates a 15 foot green space area which further widens the radius and makes turning movements much easier.
Mr. Ross asked what the divider would be constructed of? Mr. Harp stated that it would be a striped asphalt pavement with a stop sign, along with a physical stop sign for cars coming out and a raised concrete island.
Lee Baranowski asked the Petitioner if the opening on the west end of the building was 25 feet wide?
Phil Lum informed Mr. Baranowski that there was a dimension on the plan of 25 feet at the striped island. Mr. Harp stated that it would be 25 feet all the way through.
Lee Baranowski asked the Petitioner what the dots represented on the east side of the building? Mr. Harp stated that they are existing bollards that will be removed. Mr. Baranowski stated that he would like to see bollards or curbing of the striped area, because in his opinion the new design would not accomplish what they were trying to achieve. Mr. Harp stated that all he was trying to achieve is an area of caution, not a physical barrier.
Jim Ross questioned whether the entire area could be made into an island with striping? Mr. Harp stated that a typical Walgreen's design provides an escape lane, however they would be willing to work with staff to perhaps create a raised concrete island that incorporates an escape lane.
Jane Boyle stated that she did not see the issue with the escape lane and believed that the plans submitted were sufficient. She stated that the only thing she was uncertain of is whether there is an existing stop sign behind the building? Mr. Harp stated that he was not sure. Ms. Boyle stated that her concern is that the Goodwill Store has a major drop-off where people come out from behind the building. Mr. Harp stated that there would be a stop sign in both directions.
Ms. Boyle stated that she views this as a very positive expansion and has never seen a back up at the Walgreen's pharmacy located at Grandview Plaza.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner for the hours of operation for the pharmacy? Mr. Harp stated that it is their understanding that it would be 24 hours. Mr. Ross asked if there would be adequate lighting for the pharmacy area? Mr. Telowitz stated that wall mounted light fixtures would be added on the south and east walls.
Mr. Ross asked if deliveries would impede traffic in this area? Mr. Harp stated that a new loading area is being added to the back so that trucks can get out of the through traffic area.
Daniel Call agreed with the statements made by Mr. Baranowski regarding the need for bollards or curbing and suggested that the Petitioner work with the Building Commissioner to develop a better concept.
Jim Hessel asked the Petitioner if any consideration had been given to problems associated with vehicles coming in at the lighted curb cut who may not be able to make a turn due to pharmacy traffic? Mr. Harp stated that today he is not aware of an issue, although vehicles turning right will be able to move out quickly as a result of the free right. The hope is that the timing of the signals will allow for safe movement of cars turning left.
Mr. Hessel questioned whether the sidewalk would remain? Mr. Harp stated that it would remain, along with green space, new asphalt pavement and a bicycle rack with a safe crosswalk and ADA ramps.
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 drive-through facility, additional landscaping and masonry trash enclosure for the property located at 400 North Highway 67; Walgreen's, per the plans submitted this evening and the following stipulation: that the Petitioner work with the Building Commissioner to create an island separating the pharmacy lane from the driving lanes. Seconded by Jim Hessel. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Item 3 Future Meetings
The next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 22, 2011.
The next City Council Meeting will be held on February 14, 2011. Jim Ross is scheduled to represent the Commission.
Item 4 Review and Make Recommendations to the City Council to Correct the Code Regarding the Definition of "Family"
Jim Ross stated that the Commission had received a report from staff regarding this issue and asked for any discussion.
Phil Lum stated that the issue is before the Commission and Council because as written, Sections 405.035 and 510.020 are inconsistent in their definition of "Family". He stated that it appears as though the language "And no more than two other individuals," contained in Section 405.035 was generated from a possible code amendment that inadvertently added "two other individuals".
Mr. Lum stated that more than likely the Code Amendment was completed by Council to address the Fair Housing Issue, however in the case of Fair Housing the number of individuals is not counted.
The suggestion from staff is that there be three distinct definitions, which can be found on the last page of the memorandum.
Jim Hessel asked Mr. Lum if the Commission was being asked to amend Section 405.035 making it consistent with Section 510.020? Mr. Lum stated that staff is recommending that "And no more than two other individuals," be removed from Section 405.035.
Jane Boyle questioned whether the three distinct definitions provided within the memo should be added to both sections? Mr. Lum stated that based on his understanding the definitions would only go into Section 405.035; the definition for land use.
Daniel Call stated that he is of the opinion that both sections would have to be changed, because 510.020 does not include Recommendation C, which talks about a group of nine or fewer unrelated. Mr. Call also suggested that any definition of "family" be amended to refer to this new definition.
Phil Lum and Jim Ross both agreed with Mr. Call's interpretation.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to recommend that changes be made to Section 510.020 and Section 405.035 to assure consistency, per the memo dated November 12, 2010, which provides three definitions of "family". Seconded by Jim Hessel. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.
Item 4 Child Day Care Centers
Phil Lum stated that he and Mr. Gettemeier had been present at the last Council Executive Session to make their report, which appeared to be well received. He stated that the condensed side-by-side comparison was presented to Council and their only comment was why they had not been presented with the complete 21-page report that had been given to Mr. English. Mr. Lum stated that the 21-page report has since been copied and provided to Council as a whole.
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 Daniel Call. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
