MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 18, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments Page 2
Under Old Business
2525 North Highway 67
Taco Bell Page 2-3
1491 Dunn Road
Taco Bell Page 3
1740 Thunderbird
Gettemeier's Bar & Grill Page 4-5
Under New Business
1723 & 1735 S. New Florissant Road
Kydz Kastle Page 4-10
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Revised City Council Schedule Page 10
Future Meetings Page 10
Cigino's (phonetic) Page 10
Laser Pointers Page 10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., with Jim Ross presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Dick Weller, Jim Ross, Jane Boyle, Lee Baranowski, Paul Stock, 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 stated that the next order of business would be approval of minutes for the January 3, 2010 meeting. Hearing no amendments Mr. Ross made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Jane Boyle, all parties concur and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
Item 1 2525 North Highway 67
PZ120610-1 Taco Bell
CONTINUED - 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 One on the Agenda, Taco Bell located at 2525 North Highway 67; request recommended approval to amend Ordinance Number 5578 to allow for exterior renovations in a B-5 Zoning District.
Jim Ross announced that the Petitioner has requested a continuance to the February 22nd 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 the Petition to February 22, 2011. Seconded by Paul Stock. All parties concur and the motion carried.
Item 2 1491 Dunn Road
PZ120610-1 Taco Bell
CONTINUED - 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 Two on the Agenda, Taco Bell located at 1491 Dunn Road; request recommended approval to amend Ordinance Number 5469 to allow for exterior renovations in a B-5 Zoning District.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to continue the Petition to February 22, 2011. Seconded by Jane Boyle. All parties concur and the motion carried.
Item 3 1740 Thunderbird
PZ010311-3 Gettemeier's Bar & Grill
CONTINUED - Ward 6
Request Recommended Approval to
Amend a Special Use Permit Under
Ordinance No. 7407 to Allow for an
Addition to Existing Building With
Outside Food and Beverage in a B-3
Zoning District.
The Chair stated Item Number Three on the Agenda, Gettemeier's Bar & Grill located at 1740 Thunderbird; request recommended approval to amend a Special Use Permit under Ordinance Number 7407 to allow for an addition to existing building with outside food and beverage in a B-3 Zoning District.
Jim Ross announced that the Petitioner had requested a continuance 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 the Petition to February 22, 2011. Seconded by Jane Boyle. All parties concur and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Item 4 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 Four 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.
Alice Ratnaswamy appeared before the Commission and stated that she had acquired the parcels on July 21, 2010 with the goal of opening a day care center. She stated that she currently operates two day care centers in Berkeley, Missouri.
The center will provide 24 hour care for children between the ages of 6 weeks to 13 years old. Currently the center does not service children after 12 a.m., and will be open seven days a week.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner for the number of employees? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that there would be approximately eight to twelve employees consisting of one director, one assistant director and six child care workers.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if there were any plans for the exterior of the building? Mr. Lum stated that Site Plan T-0.0 includes a Site Plan and the exterior is covered by photographic elevations on A-5.1.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if any exterior renovations would be made to the structure? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that the only renovations would be construction of the playground, a trash enclosure and striping of the parking lot. Mr. Ross asked what type of lighting would be on the premises?
Agi Ratnaswamy appeared before the Commission and stated that while there are some existing lights, the Site Plan does include the addition of eight pack lights which will be located on each corner of the building.
Jim Ross asked for the location of the trash enclosure? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that it would be located outside of the playground and is illustrated on Plan T-0.0. The enclosure will be constructed of wood.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if a wood enclosure was acceptable? Mr. Lum stated that screening must be compatible with the existing building.
Mr. Ross informed the Petitioner that it would be the Commission's preference that the enclosure be constructed of masonry materials (3 sides), with a front gate. Ms. Ratnaswamy agreed to do so.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioners if they had reviewed the Staff Report? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that they had. Mr. Ross then highlighted some of the issues raised within the report.
1. The property line is a line through the parking lot therefore an Access Agreement is needed.
Phil Lum stated that he had contacted Design Alliance who had informed him that the Petitioner owns both lots and therefore an Access Agreement would not be needed.
2. The drawing indicates a play area bounded by a 6 foot high dog-eared wood fence.
Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that the existing dog-eared fence along the front would be repaired and a chain-link fence would be constructed for the playground.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner for the location of the playground? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that it would be located in the back of the building as illustrated on Plan T-0.0. Mr. Ross asked where patrons of the Barber Shop would park? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that the shop had its own designated parking. Mr. Ross asked for the size of the playground? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that it would be 3,570 square feet. Mr. Ross asked if this would be an asphalt play area? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that it would be.
3. No sprinkler system.
Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that a sprinkler system would be installed to protect the furnace area.
Phil Lum agreed that the size of the building did not warrant the installation of a complete sprinkler system.
Jim Ross asked what type of fire protection would be utilized inside the building? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that there would be a fire alarm system and extinguishers. Mr. Ross asked if any food would be prepared in the building? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that there would be a microwave and convectional oven.
Mr. Ross questioned whether any medical personnel would be on site? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that her staff would be trained to handle medical emergencies. Mr. Ross asked for the maximum occupancy load? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that she did not know.
Phil Lum stated that the occupant load for each classroom is listed by the architect and equates to approximately twenty cars. Therefore staff has recommended that 10 parking spaces be added on the north side of the existing parking lot.
Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that all of her employees would not be on the premises at one time. Mr. Ross asked how many employees were required for an eight hour shift? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that at maximum capacity there would be 75 children which required eight employees.
Phil Lum stated that the classroom load identified by the architect was 51 children and that the parking regulation is one parking space for every seven children, plus staff.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if there would be a designated lane for picking up and dropping off children? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that there would not be. Mr. Ross asked if there would be any parking on the front of the building? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that parking would be limited to the side and rear of the building. Mr. Ratnaswamy added that they did have enough land to add additional parking.
4. One 4 foot wide ramp with rails is needed in the infant room for assisted ingress/egress rescue.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner where the infant room would be located? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that from the front of the building it would be located on the right hand side; classrooms 112 and 110. Mr. Ross asked how many infants were anticipated? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that at maximum enrollment there would be twenty-four. Mr. Ross asked for an explanation of their evacuation plan? Mr. Ratnaswamy stated that there are four exits; two located directly off of the infant's room, and staff will be trained on what to do in the event of an emergency. There is one entrance is available for the general public.
Phil Lum stated that he was unsure whether any of the sidewalks were high enough off of grade to allow an entrance without a step, but after talking with the architect it is his belief that none of the entrances have steps and therefore no ramp is required.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the building would be made suitable for children with disabilities? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that it would be. Mr. Ross asked for the teacher/student ratio? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that it was 1/16 for ages 4 and up; 1/10 for ages 2 to 3 and 1/4 for ages 6 weeks to 2 years.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if there was any rooftop mechanical equipment? Mr. Lum stated that Plan A-5.1 displays equipment on the south elevation which would have to be screened from the right-of-way. Ms. Ratnaswamy asked how the equipment should be screened? Mr. Lum stated that screening has to be compatible with the building material.
Paul Stock asked the Petitioner if the two new exterior doors would be metal? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that they would be metal with a panic bar. Mr. Stock questioned whether bollards would be installed around the parameter of the playground? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that bollards would be installed every 4 feet.
Jim Hessel asked the Petitioner if the Barber Shop would remain once their lease had expired? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that they would be allowed to renew their lease.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if parents would have to park in the back and walk around the building to the front entrance? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that they could park on either side of the building, but not the back.
Ms. Boyle then questioned what the unnumbered area between Classrooms 110 and 112 represented? Mr. Ratnaswamy stated that it represented a classroom for 8 infants.
Phil Lum stated that the occupant load for Classroom 112 is 19 and 10 for Classroom 110, so the center area appears to be tied to Classroom 112.
Jane Boyle requested that each room be identified by age group on the revised plans.
Ms. Boyle asked the Petitioner asked for an explanation of the area designated as the library with 24 children? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that it could be used as a classroom/activity room/library, et cetera. Ms. Boyle questioned whether the Commission should count 24 children in this one area? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that the number did not represent additional children, merely the children that could occupy the area. Ms. Boyle advised the Petitioner that what she was trying to determine is how each space would be used and how many children would be housed in the space since the plan appears to have more children than what is actually suitable for this building.
Ms. Boyle stated that her main concern is the access for this location and how it will affect the existing traffic flow, particularly during peak times. She added that this is a very busy intersection and for years this building has generated very low traffic. So in her opinion she does not believe that this is an appropriate location for this type of business.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if the chain-link fence located on New Florissant Road belonged to her or the State? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that she did not know. Mr. Weller stated that the motion detection feature for the corner lights would not be appropriate since the lights should be on at all times. He stated that there was also a need to paint the existing wood windows on the building.
Mr. Weller questioned whether smoke detectors would be placed throughout the building? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that they would be. Mr. Weller then suggested that the architect include the parking spaces for parcel 1723 on the plans in order to determine how and where the 10 additional spaces will be located.
Mr. Weller asked Mr. Lum if there was any room for parking in the front of the building? Mr. Lum stated that where the property line is drawn the dimension is 5 foot 1/12 inches, which is not suitable for an off-street parking space.
Lee Baranowski asked the Petitioner if the chain-link fence along Florissant Road was parallel to the road or the property line? Mr. Lum noted that the fence was not indicated on Drawing T-0.0.
Mr. Baranowski stated that the fence was an important part of this property and should be included on the drawing. He then informed the Petitioner that he had driven his truck through the area today and could perceive patrons of the business doing the same to drop off their kids at the front of the building. Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that all children would have to be released to a teacher/monitor for security purposes.
Mr. Baranowski stated that the location of the trash enclosure at the northeast corner would block the driveway. Mr. Lum stated that the plans were to move the enclosure next to the playground?
Mr. Baranowski asked for an explanation of the area marked NIC on the drawings? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that both businesses located within this area would be gone by the end of this month. Mr. Baranowski asked what would happen with the additional space? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that a portion of the space has already been included in the drawings and the remaining space would probably be used for the day care center in the future.
Mr. Baranowski questioned whether the back doors depicted on Drawing A-3.1 would be used as an access to the playground? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that they would be. Mr. Baranowski asked how access would be achieved into the kitchen? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that currently the only access is from the outside however a new entry will be constructed to allow access from the inside. Mr. Baranowski noted that the inside entrance was located off of the toilet area. Mr. Ratnaswamy stated that initially the outside entrance will be used and once the last tenant leaves a new inside entry will be constructed.
Phil Lum advised the Petitioner that the outside entry is the one place that the need for an interior accessible route would be violated.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner how many businesses would be located in the building? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that by the first of March the only business on this parcel would be the day care.
Paul Stock asked the Petitioner if she would be participating in the Latch Key Program? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that she would be. Mr. Stock asked where busses associated with this program would drop off their students? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that busses would utilize the front of the building, although she would provide transportation to and from the schools.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the day care would have its own vans? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that she has three vans to service all of her locations, which can be housed at her Berkeley location.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if she would be willing to pay for a traffic study for this location? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that she did not know what was meant by a traffic study. Mr. Ross suggested that she discuss the option with Mr. Lum.
Dick Weller stated that he did not believe that the Ferguson/Florissant School District would drive onto private property to drop off a student? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that that was correct they would be dropped off at the corner.
Phil Lum stated that he did not think a drive in the front of the building would be legal because of where the property line is shown.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if this would be a day care center or a learning center? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that it would also be a learning center. Mr. Ross asked if staff would be certified or accredited to teach children? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that most of her teachers are certified with clock hours for training.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if there were any distinctions between a child day care center and a learning center? Mr. Lum stated that the State would be dealing with a different set of parameters, but under the Zoning Code Florissant identifies any facility that has the care of a child for any portion of the day as a child day care center.
Jim Ross advised the Petitioner that the Commission could vote on the plans and testimony presented this evening or continue the Petition and allow time to revise the plans pursuant to the concerns expressed by each Commissioner? Ms. Ratnaswamy stated that they would gather more information and return in two weeks.
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 continue the Petition to the next meeting. Seconded by Paul Stock. All parties concur and the motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Item 5 Revised City Council Schedule
Jim Ross acknowledged that the Commission had received a copy of the revised schedule.
Item 6 Future Meetings
The next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will be held on Monday, February 7, 2011.
The next City Council Meeting will be held on January 24, 2011, Dan Call is scheduled to represent the Commission.
Item 7 Cigino's Restaurant
Daniel Call informed Mr. Lum that the restaurant had placed a temporary cover on their outdoor patio and questioned whether they needed a permit for a temporary structure? Mr. Lum stated that he was not aware of them receiving a permit and the temporary structure is only allowed for a certain amount of time.
Item 8 Laser Pointers
Lee Baranowski suggested that the City purchase laser pointers and make one available at Council and Planning and Zoning Meetings. Mr. Lum stated that that was a good suggestion.
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 8:25 p.m.
