MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments Page 2
Under New Business
2393 North Highway 67
Retail Building Page 2-8
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Commission Training Page 8
Selection of New Members Page 8
Dierberg’s Page 8
Future Meetings Page 8-9
Child Daycare Centers Page 9
WalMart Page 9
Religious Signs Page 9
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, November 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., with Jane Boyle presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Jane Boyle, Daniel Call, Jim Hessel, Paul Stock and Lee Baranowski. Also present was Deborah Carter, 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
Jane Boyle announced that Dick Weller was excused from attendance at tonight's meeting.
Commissioner Boyle stated that the next order of business would be approval of the minutes for the October 17, 2011 meeting.
Phil Lum stated that page 3, which states "full double-width masonry," should read "full double Wythe masonry," and that page 7, which states "Shawn Wright (phonetic)," should be amended to read "Shawn White".
A motion to approve the minutes as amended was made and seconded. All parties concur and the motion carried.
[Transcriber's Note: Microphones are off from 4:36:24 to 4:49:48. It is also difficult to hear the speaker at the podium.]
NEW BUSINESS:
Item 1 2393 North Highway 67
PZ112111-1 Retail Building (Formerly Value City)
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 9
Request Recommended Approval to Amend
an Existing B-5 Planned Commercial
District to Allow for Additional Retail
Establishments.
The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, Retail Building located at 2393 North Highway 67; Request
recommended approval to amend an existing B-5 Planned Commercial District to allow for additional retail establishments.
Richard Obertino appeared before the Commission and presented his proposal.
Paul Stock asked the Petitioner if the five names listed on the sign would be utilized by tenants within the retail establishment? Mr. Obertino stated that that was correct. Mr. Stock questioned whether the names of tenants located in the out-lot could eventually be added to the sign? Mr. Obertino stated that while they could be added the square footage of the sign would always remain the same.
Phil Lum advised all parties that the maximum height for a ground sign with more than one pole is 40 feet. The Petitioner has agreed to relocate the sign behind the 40 foot setback and therefore the sign as presented could be approved as a part of this B-5.
Mr. Stock asked the Petitioner for a genetic description of the types of tenants that would be housed in the retail establishment? Mr. Obertino stated that there would be furniture, crafts and restaurants. Mr. Stock stated that his only concern was whether the tenants would be appropriate for this location? Mr. Obertino stated that it was their belief that they were.
Mr. Stock asked the Petitioner if any modifications had been made to the interior portions of the building. Mr. Obertino stated that no modifications have been made to the building. Mr. Stock questioned whether construction would begin within 90 days of receiving the appropriate permits? Mr. Obertino stated that the tenants were anxious to begin and their desire is to be open by this time next year.
John Hessel asked the Petitioner if he would explain the differences between the old and new proposals? Mr. Obertino stated that the previous proposal was to take the existing building and divide it into a 50/40, 60/30 split, which would house two retailers of sporting goods and electronics. No out-lots were proposed at that time, which was based upon their specific parking requirements.
Mr. Hessel questioned whether the corridor located in the back of Units C and D would mainly be used as an exit, rather than delivery? Mr. Obertino stated that the corridor would be used to make deliveries to Units C and D, although it could not be used for storage of those materials. Mr. Hessel stated that there was a large amount of EIFS above the signage along the rear of the buildings in the out-lot, which he would like to see reduced if possible. Mr. Obertino stated that originally it had been designed as all brick, but was changed based on a request from Target who believed that the EIFS improved the buildings’ aesthetics.
Daniel Call advised the Petitioner that the Commission’s plans for drawing A-1 were different than the one being presented. He then questioned the date of the new drawing? Mr. Obertino stated that it would be dated November 21st. Mr. Call stated that the new drawing would have an impact on the Proposed Motion presented by staff and therefore the following items should be included in the plans prior to submission to City Council: (1) the trash enclosure located next to Building E, (2) the three vertical interior walls and (3), the location of the sign.
Mr. Obertino apologized for the confusion and stated that their only intent was to illustrate the revisions that had been made based on the staff’s comments.
Mr. Call asked the Petitioner to identify what the two boxes located above and below the dash lines at 3/A-2 represented? Mr. Obertino stated that the boxes represented two trash enclosures. Mr. Call questioned whether there was another trash enclosure located next to Building E? Mr. Obertino stated that there was.
Mr. Call recommended that the November 21st plans be incorporated in the Proposed Motion since it represents what is actually being proposed.
Phil Lum suggested that either the motion be revised or the new plans dated November 21st be submitted to staff before it goes to Council. Mr. Lum then questioned whether the two trash enclosures located next to cut line 3/A-2 would have an impact on the parking requirements?
Daniel Call stated that in his opinion this would be a moot point since the enclosures would only impact 2 spaces and the Petitioner has 40 excess spaces.
Mr. Call strongly suggested that the top slot on the pylon sign identified as (A), be renamed as Target to avoid any confusion with the new buildings lettered A through E. He then questioned whether there were any existing interior walls? Mr. Obertino stated that whatever walls are there still exist today, as no modifications have been made to the building.
Mr. Call agreed with the suggestion of Commissioner Hessel to reduce the amount of EIFS on the buildings located on the out-lot.
Jane Boyle stated that her feelings are very strong that the City of Florissant is the entity that sets the standards for the construction of buildings and therefore would not support the project as long as the EIFS remained on the rear of the buildings.
Mr. Obertino agreed to submit the drawings dated November 21st prior to submission to Council and to remove the EIFS from the rear of the buildings located on the out-lot.
Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum if the Commission was approving the Site Plan or merely the Petitioner’s request to add an additional building? Mr. Lum stated that the Commission’s role is to review the zoning uses which are listed on the drawings as a retail establishment and a restaurant. Mr. Baranowski stated that his concern is that the Commission has no idea what type of retail establishments are being proposed. Mr. Lum stated that the sell of general merchandise is one of the permitted uses in a B-3 and therefore would be a permitted use in a B-5. And while he is right in saying that the Commission is approving uses and their locations by the Site Plan, the final plans, which in this case will consist of fairly minor modifications, is not reviewed by this Commission. He stated that in his opinion as long the modifications are discussed during the meeting and the motion is revised to identify the modifications he did not see a problem with the Commission making a recommendation.
Mr. Baranowski asked Mr. Lum how the Commission should address the signage for Tenant A which is identified as being greater than 100 square feet? Mr. Lum stated that under a B-5 the Commission can make a recommendation on signs larger than 100 square feet, and in his opinion it would be justifiable to request such a sign since the building is located several hundred feet from the highway. Mr. Baranowski stated that in his opinion the Commission should not approve any sign without the opportunity to review what is going to be displayed on the sign. Mr. Lum stated that unless the graphics are profane the Commission actually has no control over the type of message that will be displayed. Mr. Baranowski stated that he did not see a need for the 100 square foot sign on the building since the tenant’s name is also being listed on the pylon sign located near the street.
Jane Boyle asked Mr. Lum if the size of the proposed sign met the City’s requirements? Mr. Lum stated that the sign met the City’s requirements for review and approval by this Commission and City Council.
Daniel Call asked Commissioner Baranowski if he would be willing to stipulate that the pylon sign must be submitted for review and approval by City Council? Mr. Baranowski stated that his concern is that this Commission will not have the ability to review the sign prior to making a recommendation.
Mr. Baranowski then asked the Petitioner where the 200 employees had been designated to park? Mr. Obertino stated that there would never be 200 employees working at the same time, and that some of them would more than likely be utilizing public transportation. Nevertheless, he advised Commissioner Baranowski that the parking calculations included employees as well as patrons.
Mr. Baranowski informed the Petitioner that there were no dimensions listed for the turning radius and therefore would question whether tractor-trailers could adequately maneuver in the space that has been allocated? Mr. Obertino stated that the circle on the drawing had been used to illustrate the turning radius which will remain as it currently exists. With the addition of Building E, Mr. Baranowski questioned whether the footprint would remain the same? Mr. Obertino stated that it would be the same footprint since Building E will simply be replacing the garden center as it exists today.
Phil Lum noted that currently tractor-trailers unload behind Target which is roughly the same width as the pavement behind the proposed building.
Steve Gettemeier, Fire Marshal for the Florissant Valley Fire Protection District appeared before the Commission and stated that although he does have a few concerns that will be addressed during his review process, he did not find any problems associated with the exterior design of the building.
Daniel Call asked the Petition if the pylon sign was illustrated on the plans dated November 21st? Mr. Obertino stated that it had inadvertently been omitted. Mr. Call asked the Petitioner if he had any objections to revising the plans dated November 21st to include the dimensions for the turning radius and the location of the pylon sign? Mr. Obertino stated that he did not.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if any cart corrals would be constructed on the parking lot? Mr. Obertino stated that he did not know whether any of these particular tenants would utilize corrals, but if there is a need it would be very minimal. Ms. Boyle questioned whether there would be an in-ground irrigation system? Mr. Obertino asked Mr. Lum whether the ordinance required the installation of a system? Mr. Lum stated that it did.
Mr. Obertino stated that there will be a review of the landscaping and water quality since MSD now requires you to clean water basins. Ms. Boyle asked whether the parking lot would be replaced or resurfaced? Mr. Obertino stated that it would be resurfaced.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner? Being no further questions or comments Daniel Call made a motion to recommend approval to amend an existing B-5 Planned Commercial District to allow for additional retail establishments for the property located at 2393 North Highway 67; formerly Value City, per the Suggested Motion dated November 15, 2011, and the following amendments: that Drawing A-1 dated 11/10/11 and Drawing A-6 dated 11/10/11 shall be superseded by new drawings. Drawing A-1 shall identify the turning radius for tractor-trailers; the location of the pylon sign as being adjacent to azimuth 55 degrees, 24 minutes, 42 seconds west; the location of the trash enclosures adjacent to Building E and the location of the trash enclosures located at the intersection of Section A/A-2 as azimuth north 89 degrees, 52 minutes, 50 seconds east. Drawing A-6 shall identify the pylon sign elevation to include the Target logo, identification of Buildings A through E and renovations to the north elevation of Building F to ensure that it meets all of the masonry requirements. Seconded by Paul Stock and on roll call the Commission voted: Stock yes, Hessel yes, Call yes, Boyle yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carries.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Item 2 Commission Training
Phil Lum advised the Commission that the training scheduled for November 22nd has been cancelled.
Item 3 Selection of New Commission Member
Paul Stock asked Mr. Lum if there were any updates regarding the selection of a new Commission member? Mr. Lum stated that efforts are still being made to recruit an architect. And although it is his understanding that the requirements for a graduate civil engineer is met by Commissioner Call and the requirements for a graduate engineer is met by Commissioner Baranowski, the City Clerk has requested that all current members provide her office with a copy of their resume to ensure that they have records documenting that these requirements have been met.
Jane Boyle advised Mr. Lum that she had replied to the City Clerk’s request today.
Item 4 Dierberg’s
Jane Boyle asked Mr. Lum if Dierberg’s had received a Special Use Permit to operate the barbecue stand that is now located on their parking lot? Mr. Lum stated that this is something that has been very successful at many of their locations around town. So the Special Use Permit was approved administratively after it was agreed to by both parties that no signage would be displayed on the trailer and that the stand would not generate any concerns of smoke at the property lines.
Item 5 Future Meetings
The next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will be held on December 5, 2011.
The next City Council Representative for the meeting held on November 28, 2011, will be Jane Boyle.
Item 6 Child Daycare Centers
Jim Hessel stated that he had sat in on a meeting with Mr. Hernandez, Ms. McKay and two business owners of child daycare centers. As a result, an Ordinance was proposed and read at the last Council meeting to prohibit child daycare centers from being established in shopping centers.
Daniel Call asked if the Ordinance would become effective the night of the third reading? Mr. Lum stated that it would become effective once it is signed by the Mayor.
Item 7 WalMart
Jane Boyle stated that she had watched the City Council Meeting and it appeared to her as though there had been no mention of the Commission’s recommendation for WalMart to meet the masonry requirements.
Jim Hessel stated that he had been in attendance at the meeting and although it was not mentioned initially by WalMart, the recommendation was discussed by
Council.
Item 8 Religious Signs
Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum if the Commission had any jurisdiction over religious signs? Mr. Lum stated that they did not, although the City does request that religious entities obtain a building permit for all signs. Mr. Baranowski advised Mr. Lum that the sign in front of St. Mark’s Church scrolls. Mr. Lum stated that at this point the City is waiting until the Digital Sign Ordinance is passed, which will then require everyone to come under the same regulation. In the meantime, he stated that he would write the church a letter asking them to eliminate the scrolling and reduce the sign’s brightness at night.
Jane Boyle also noted the same problem with the sign for North County Christian.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Paul Stock made a motion to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Daniel Call. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
