MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments Page 2
Under Old Business
1723 & 1735 S. New Florissant
Kydz Kastle Page 2-3
Under New Business
865 North Lafayette
J & M Service Page 3-5
Miscellaneous Business
Review, Discuss and Make Recommendations
to Amend Parking Ratios Page 5-9
Make Recommendations to Implement a
Moratorium on the Issuance of Business
Licenses to Taverns, Cocktail Lounges
And Nightclubs Page 9-12
Dierberg's Page 12-13
Signs and Billboards Page 13
Bangert Park Page 13
Commission Packets Page 13-14
City Attorney Page 14
Future Meetings Page 14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, June 6, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., with Jane Boyle presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Paul Stock, 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 April 18, 2011 meeting. Hearing no objections Jim Hessel made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Paul Stock, all parties concur and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
Item 1 1723 & 1735 South New Florissant Rd.
PZ011811-4 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 1723 & 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.
Jane Boyle acknowledged the Petitioner's request for a continuance and questioned why this Petition was back on the agenda? Mr. Lum stated that the Fire Marshal found the entrance drive to be in excess of a 15 percent slope, which would impede emergency vehicles.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to continue this item to the June 20, 2011 meeting. Seconded by Paul Stock. All
parties concur and the motion carried.
Item 2 865 North Lafayette
PZ060611-2 J&M Service
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 6
Request Recommended Approval of a
Special Use Permit to Allow for an
Auto Repair Business in a B-1
District.
The Chair stated Item Number Two on the Agenda, J & M Service, located at 865 North Lafayette; request recommended approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for an auto repair business in a B-1 District.
Phil Lum advised the Commission that the Petitioner is seeking to add his automobile repair business to an existing business at this location. However a review of the Special Use Permit prepared in 1964 contains a stipulation which states that if a portion of the parcel is used or sold for any other purpose than what is set out in the Ordinance the Special Use Permit shall be revoked. The purpose stated in the Permit is a radiator shop and therefore the creation of a new Special Use Permit would revoke the existing permit and prohibit the landlord from conducting his radiator business. Mr. Lum suggested that the Petition be revised to read "Request Recommended Approval of an amendment to the Special Use Permit to allow for an auto repair business".
Jane Boyle made a motion to amend the Petition to read as follows: "Request Recommended Approval of an Amendment to a Special Use Permit to allow for an Auto Repair Business in a B-1 District". Seconded by Paul Stock. On roll call the Commission voted: Stock yes, Boyle yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.
Mike Miller appeared before the Commission and stated that previously he had operated the Sinclair Gas Station located at 2020 Patterson, but after losing his lease Mr. Fuller, the owner of this building, provided him with an opportunity to lease two bays at his radiator repair shop which would allow him to continue doing business in Florissant.
Jane Boyle asked Mr. Lum if this was the same radiator shop that had previously come before the Commission? Mr. Lum stated that it was the same building. Ms. Boyle asked the Petitioner if vehicles would be stored at this location? Mr. Miller stated that this would be a general repair shop similar to the one at Sinclair where cars are dropped off in the morning and picked up in the evening. Ms. Boyle asked if a tow truck would be stored at the location? Mr. Miller stated that it would not be.
Paul Stock asked the Petitioner if he was an owner or employee of Florissant Radiator? Mr. Miller stated that he was not. Mr. Stock asked for the hours of operation? Mr. Miller stated that they would be open from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., five days a week; the same as the radiator shop.
Mr. Stock asked the Petitioner if he would have any signage? Mr. Miller stated that he would not. Mr. Stock asked if each business would have a separate office space? Mr. Miller stated that the office was large enough to be utilized by the two of them.
Jim Hessel asked Mr. Lum if he would elaborate on the sentence contained in Staff's Analysis which states that Public Works will work with the Petitioner regarding trash containers? Mr. Lum stated that if the dumpster can be seen from the right-of-way or a residentially zoned property then it is up to Public Works to request that the owner provide screening. Mr. Hessel asked Mr. Lum if the owner was aware of this requirement? Mr. Lum stated that he was.
Jane Boyle asked Mr. Lum if the Commission's recommendation should contain a stipulation regarding the trash container? Mr. Lum stated that it could be included within the Special Use Permit however it was not necessary for enforcement.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if any wrecked automobiles would be stored on the property? Mr. Miller stated that there would not be.
Mr. Weller asked if the adjacent building located on the corner was connected with the radiator business? Mr. Lum stated that the building was owned by Mr. Fuller and used as the business office for Florissant Radiator.
Mr. Weller asked the Petitioner if cars waiting to be serviced would be parked in front of the office building? Mr. Miller stated that customers would drive in for service however no cars would remain in the area.
Mr. Weller then informed Mr. Lum that there was a lot of debris located in the rear of the building.
Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum if this property was located within the Historic District? Mr. Lum stated that it was outside of the District.
Paul Stock asked Mr. Lum if a Cross-Access Agreement was needed between the two businesses? Mr. Lum stated that since there is only one owner it would not be required.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner? Being no further questions or comments, Jane Boyle made a motion to recommend approval of an amendment to a Special Use Permit to allow for an auto repair business for the property located at 865 North Lafayette; J & M Service, with the following stipulation: that the dumpster be screened from the right-of-way or view of residentially zoned property. Seconded by Dick Weller. On roll call the Commission voted: Stock yes, Boyle yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Item 3 Review, Discuss and Make Recommendations to Amend Parking Ratios
Phil Lum provided the Commission with a brief background of the MSD requirements to clean up the water and its current impact on parking lot drainage. As a result of these efforts St. Louis County assembled the Storm Water Work Group; several municipalities and agencies, and tasked them with reviewing the issues and proposing recommended solutions.
City Staff reviewed the Work Group's final analysis and determined that in a number of cases the parking ratios for the City of Florissant were higher than most municipalities cited in the report i.e., 6 2/3 parking spaces per thousand versus 4 or 5 parking spaces per thousand.
Another major difference is that the City uses two denominators to establish the parking ratio; use of the building and the zoning district, whereas the Work Group utilized only one, the use of the building.
In an attempt to streamline the study staff provided the Commission with three documents and suggested that they be utilized to review the City's parking ratios, particularly with respect to larger developments, where there is a definite need to control storm water run-off.
Enclosure A - The Work Group's Parking Chart.
Enclosure B - A table from the Florissant City Code containing the current parking ratios.
Enclosure C - A chart comparing Florissant's parking ratios vs. the studied ratios.
Dick Weller stated that he had noticed in the original Work Group document that both square footage and GFA was used throughout the document. He then questioned why they had not simply used one or the other? Mr. Lum stated that in some instances, such as a church or assembly space, the preference is to use square footage rather than the GFA (gross floor area). Mr. Weller asked for an explanation of gross floor area? Mr. Lum stated that it meant from outside wall to outside wall or the entire building, not just the leasable space.
Mr. Lum stated that staff's main concern is the fact that Florissant is soon to have a large retail development consisting of 158,000 square feet, and under the current requirements of 5 per thousand, parking would need to be roughly 780 spaces. The developer's original plan asked for two restaurant out-lots, however using these calculations only one will be allowed. A reduction in the ratio, for example 2.85 per thousand, would reduce parking to 370 spaces and add approximately 2 acres. Such a reduction would then allow for the construction of the second out-lot.
Mr. Lum then provided the Commission with examples of large unused parking sections resulting from the 5 per thousand ratio; Target, Cross Keys, Lowes and Dierberg's.
Jane Boyle asked Mr. Lum if the Commission's decision would go to City Council in the form of a recommendation? Mr. Lum stated that staff had drafted a report outlining twelve options that could be submitted for Council's consideration.
Lee Baranowski stated that it was his personal belief that even quoting GFA would depend upon the use of the building. For example, 50 percent of Home Depot's GFA may be used for long-term storage. Mr. Baranowski suggested that perhaps some type of sliding scale be used that would allow this Commission to make a determination based on the use.
Dick Weller asked for an explanation of the term Phase II Co-Permittee (phonetic), as cited in the Work Group Study? Mr. Hessel stated that this was a special permit issued by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. He stated that St. Louis is an odd situation in that MSD pretty much owns all of the storm and sanitary sewers, making them the permittee. Individual cities are called the Co-Permittee because only they have the jurisdiction to perform specific functions required by the permit. In other words, it is the cities that establish and enforce most of the regulations and not MSD.
Mr. Weller asked Mr. Lum if you could get more parking with a 90 degree angle or a 45 degree angle? Mr. Lum stated that a 90 degree angle is always the most efficient. Mr. Weller asked how a reduction in the ratio would have an impact on MSD if additional islands or pervious pavements were required by the City? Mr. Lum stated that as Mr. Hessel described, these types of additions are now becoming mandatory on larger developments.
Mr. Weller stated that he agreed with MSD's viewpoint because something has to be done when there are 12 inch lines that cannot handle the load.
Jane Boyle stated that when one looks at all the unused parking throughout the City it would be hard to disagree with this theory. However if a reduction in the ratio also produces more parking with the addition of new developments, then the question in her mind would be are we really addressing the problem? Ms. Boyle concluded that at this point in time she was somewhat hesitant about making a specific recommendation without additional information.
Phil Lum advised the Commission that another issue to consider is that a use-based only formula may create additional challenges when the use of the building changes.
Jim Hessel stated that as an employee for the Department of Natural Resources he is aware that it was not the developers or MSD necessarily driving this initiative, but the EPA. Several years ago EPA decided that there was a need to impose more regulations on storm water. MS-4 Permits must now be established by every state, and is just one of the things that they are looking at to reduce storm water. Rain gardens and pervious pavement are also considered as a means to control the pollutants in the storm water and there are going to be other things coming down the line in the future.
Mr. Hessel stated that this is an exhaustive amount of information and since he does not have the expertise to make the type of determinations needed for the various building uses he would like to see the City recommend that further studies be conducted by professionals.
Paul Stock stated that having had the opportunity to see large masses of water on parking lots during a downpour there is no doubt in his mind that there is a need to reduce the number of parking spaces. He stated that his preference would be to utilize grain since it provides an opportunity to add additional landscaping that can absorb some of the run-off.
Lee Baranowski questioned whether developers of larger parcels of land could provide the Commission with an explanation of their use and the anticipated number of spaces needed? Mr. Stock stated that he has had the opportunity to work with the entity in question today on numerous occasions and can assure you that they know their business very well because they conduct studies on every aspect of the development. He added that this however would probably not be true for most of the smaller businesses.
Jim Hessel stated that in his opinion the City needed to develop set regulations since the majority of petitioners will consist of smaller businesses with no means to conduct such a study.
Dick Weller noted that even the developers of Cross Keys have become concerned about the smaller guys and the amount of business they generate.
Jane Boyle asked Mr. Lum if he had any knowledge of what other municipalities were doing to address this issue? Mr. Lum stated that although he had not conducted any research, his assumption is that they too are contemplating this issue. He stated that there is some wisdom in making a recommendation to Council that a further study, either by professionals and/or staff, be conducted, especially if the single issue of larger developments cannot be tackled without this additional information.
Jane Boyle stated that even with the City's current requirements some of the smaller strip centers do not have enough parking.
Paul Stock asked Mr. Lum if it would create an undue burden on staff to review this issue? Mr. Lum stated that staff could conduct a review of neighboring municipalities and a thousand businesses within the City to analyze the use of their current parking lots.
Jane Boyle asked if the City Engineer would have an interest in this project? Mr. Lum informed Ms. Boyle that it was the City Engineer who first raised this issue.
Mr. Lum stated that in spite of the fact that the Work Group had been able to compose a very long list of uses there will always be an oddball situation requiring an independent determination. He stated that many of these gray areas would be resolved by switching to the building use only formula rather than the inclusion of both factors.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Paul Stock made a motion to request that an additional study be performed by Mr. Lum and his staff to determine the current inventory of uses and the actions of neighboring municipalities. Seconded by Dick Weller. On roll call the Commission voted: Stock yes, Boyle yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.
Item 4 Make Recommendations to Implement a Moratorium on the Issuance of Business Licenses to Taverns/Cocktail Lounges and Nightclubs.
Phil Lum stated that he had consulted with the City Attorney regarding this issue and based on the following reasons staff is recommending that a moratorium be placed on the issuance of business licenses to taverns, cocktail lounges and nightclubs:
(1) Taverns or cocktail lounges are a permitted use within the B-3 Business, while a restaurant that serves alcohol is a special use.
(2) Restaurants require a special use within the B-3 and B-4 Districts.
(3) Staff has received numerous complaints and has been made aware of dozens of police call-outs regarding businesses of this nature.
Mr. Lum stated that the two charts contained in the Commission's packet are a result of the research conducted by City staff, and includes the names of 17 taverns, cocktail lounges/nightclubs, and 38 restaurants who currently hold a liquor license.
Mr. Lum explained that in order to impose a moratorium there must be a limitation of scope as well as a defined time limit. The City Attorney has suggested that the maximum length of time for the moratorium be six months. Mr. Lum stated that this six month period would provide the City with an opportunity to discuss the issues and make a determination on what, if any, actions are needed to address the problem.
Mr. Lum further explained that while approval is needed from City Council, once the recommendation is made by Planning and Zoning Commission staff would immediately halt the issuance of any Business License in anticipation of the moratorium.
For discussion purposes Jane Boyle made a motion that this Commission move to recommend approval of a moratorium on the issuance of Business Licenses to taverns, cocktail lounges and nightclubs for a period of six months. Seconded by Paul Stock.
Lee Baranowski suggested that the Commission make a recommendation that a Business License for restaurants and taverns, et cetera, be issued under a Special Use Permit.
Phil Lum stated that one of the cases they studied was Nashville, who wrote an ordinance making it mandatory for nightclubs to have sprinkler systems. The next year they were sued by a consortium of nightclub owners who contended that some businesses were so small that they did not require sprinklers. These are the type of issues that you must be aware of because the code is the code, so some of these issues simply do not belong in a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Lum stated that one of the things that must be done is to distinguish the differences between all three entities which are all currently licensed in the same manner.
Jane Boyle stated that if the Commission recommends a moratorium for six months it would an opportunity to look at the options prior to making a specific recommendation.
Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum what had precipitated this item? Mr. Lum stated that there were a couple of places on New Halls Ferry; Club Situation, which is now closed and Club Indy, where the Chief reported he had received dozens of nuisance calls.
He stated that it had been the City Attorney's belief that this list would compromise no more than 5 active businesses, and therefore the simple thing to do would be to recommend that they no longer be a permitted use. However the fact that there are actually 16 businesses creates a larger dynamic of businesses that would be impacted by such a recommendation.
Mr. Weller asked why Council couldn't just deny the issuance of a liquor license? Ms. Boyle stated that they would be able to do that once this Commission recommends the moratorium. Mr. Lum stated that that was correct, because without a moratorium the City must continue to issue a license without really knowing whether it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Weller asked what impact instituting such a moratorium would have on other businesses? Or in other words, where does this stop? Mr. Lum stated that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the moratorium is limited in scope and conducted in a reasonable amount of time. And as a result, you simply cannot initiate a blanket moratorium for all uses on the premise that there are no good businesses coming into the City.
Lee Baranowski asked who would conduct the study? Mr. Lum stated that his assumption is that it would be City Council and the City Attorney.
Jim Hessel asked Mr. Lum if City Council was the body that issued Liquor Licenses? Mr. Lum explained that the first step would be to apply for a Business License at the Finance Office, and any application for a Liquor License would then be submitted to the City Clerk. Since the City Clerk is the person in charge of all admissions, runs the public hearings and advertises for same, the license must go before Council.
Mr. Lum stated that because it is a permitted use there are some instances where he is unaware of a new business until they are ready for an Occupancy Permit. Mr. Hessel questioned whether Liquor Licenses were perpetual or renewed on a yearly basis? Mr. Lum stated that they are renewed annually to ensure that applicants continue to meet specified licensing conditions. Mr. Hessel then questioned whether the moratorium would impact businesses needing to renew their license? Mr. Lum stated that it would not.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jane Boyle requested a roll call vote. On roll call the Commission voted: Stock yes, Boyle yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.
Item 5 Dierberg's
Dick Weller stated that he had reviewed the letter dated April 27, 2011 regarding the development at Dierberg's and asked Mr. Lum if he would explain the meaning of "Staff hereby grants administrative approval," which can be found in the third paragraph from the top?
Mr. Lum stated that initially approval had been granted for the construction of two identical buildings, one being the Clarkson Eye Care Center and the other to replace the existing Quizno's building. During the presentation of the second building the designs illustrated that there would be areas of the building without masonry, to which the Commission argued was not acceptable. The developers then went back to the drawing board and revised all of their plans to reinstate the masonry, with the exception of the areas called out in the originally approved plans. Therefore once the developers came back with the same plans that had originally been approved by Planning and Zoning Commission it was staff's belief that they could be approved administratively.
Mr. Weller asked if there would be two areas with EIFS rather than four? Mr. Lum stated that there would be one area on each storefront.
Item 6 Signs and Billboards
Dick Weller stated that he had noticed in the Annual Brief of Council Meetings that signs and billboards were scheduled to be reviewed and asked Mr. Lum if he knew what had triggered this action?
After a review of the pertinent section, Section 2.14, Mr. Lum advised Commissioner Weller that the review involved grand opening signs/displays and signs in Residential Districts not exceeding 6 square feet; i.e., for sale, rental or lease of real estate. Mr. Lum stated that his belief is that this appears to be an effort to make these signs more uniform.
Mr. Weller asked Mr. Lum if he was aware of who was chairing this endeavor? Mr. Lum stated that the item had been drafted by the City Attorney.
Jane Boyle stated that she was aware of the fact that there had been a couple of real estate companies who have installed very large auction signs in the front yard of a residence.
Item 7 Bangert Park
Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum if the City had a lease agreement with the company who had installed the satellite transmission towers located in Bangert Park? Mr. Lum stated that it was his belief that they did. Mr. Weller stated that slightly beyond the towers is a stone monument with a religious viewpoint. He stated that he was curious to know whether this portion of the property was controlled by the owners of the transmission towers or the City Park? Mr. Lum stated that there is only a very small portion outside of the fenced area that is controlled by the satellite company which is to be used for the sole purpose of landscaping. Therefore if the monument is located outside of the fenced area more than likely it is on City property. Mr. Lum stated that he would send out an email inquiring about the matter.
Item 8 Commission Packets
Jim Hessel requested that the Commission be provided, if possible, a longer period of time to review the materials pertaining to the large retail development that is scheduled to come before Planning and Zoning Commission in the near future.
Item 9 City Attorney
Jane Boyle stated that the Commission had also asked for permission to utilize the assistance of the City Attorney on an as-needed basis, and to date there has been no response to this request. Mr. Lum stated that he would discuss the issue with Mr. Hessel tomorrow.
Item 10 Future Meetings
The next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will be held on Monday, June 20, 2011.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Hessel made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Dick Weller. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
