MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 17, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments Page 2
Under Old Business
3350 & 3400 North Highway 67
and 3605 Seville
Wal-Mart Page 2-12
Under New Business
1475 Dunn Road
AT&T Mobility Page 12-15
390 W. St. Anthony
Training Up A Child Page 15-16
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Commission Training Page 17
Future Meetings Page 17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, October 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., with Jane Boyle presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Jane Boyle, Dick Weller, 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.
Pursuant to the Missouri Sunshine Law, Jane Boyle made a motion to adjourn the public meeting and go into Executive Session. Seconded by Jim Hessel. On roll call the Commission voted: Stock yes, Baranowski yes, Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel yes and Weller yes. Motion carried.
[Whereupon, the public meeting was recessed at 7:05 p.m. to reconvene this same day at 7:12 p.m.]
ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENTS
Jane Boyle, Vice Chair of the Commission announced that she would be temporarily filling the role of President for tonight's meeting due to the resignation of Jim Ross.
Commissioner Boyle stated that the next order of business would be approval of the minutes for the October 3, 2011 meeting. Hearing no amendments Jane Boyle made a motion to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Paul Stock. All parties concur and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
Item 1 3350 & 3400 North Highway 67
and 3605 Seville
Wal-Mart
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 9
Request Recommended Approval to
Rezone From B-3 & M-2 Zoning to a B-5
Zoning District to Allow for a New
Retail Center and Outlot.
The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, Wal-Mart, located at 3360 & 3400 North Highway 67 and 3605 Seville; request recommended approval to rezone from B-3 and M-2 Zoning to a B-5 Zoning District to allow for a new retail center and outlot.
Jeff Otto of THF Florissant Development appeared before the Commission and addressed concerns from the last meeting.
LIGHT POLES: The Site Plan has been revised to incorporate 25 foot high poles throughout the shopping center.
LANDSCAPING PLAN: To be more effective in providing a shield for the residential property located to the south all new landscaping around this buffer area will be moved to the top of the hill.
The material for the fence has been changed to white vinyl and Outlot Number 2 has been removed from the plans.
TRAFFIC STUDY: The Site Plan was revised to reflect the location of the recommended signal warning light on Lindbergh. Installation of this warning light will be subject to MoDOT's approval.
Since the last meeting the Petitioner has had several conversations with the owner of the Lindbergh Plaza shopping center, Kent Evans, regarding their proposal to modify an entrance to this property. All owners of the strip mall have reviewed the Preliminary Plans and are in agreement with the alternative entrance that will allow full access to this property.
MASONRY ORDINANCE: The Petitioner believes that they have tried to honor the spirit of this Ordinance and as such, no modifications were made. The front facade will be full double-width masonry and split-faced block will be used on the sides and rear of the building.
Mr. Otto then provided the Commission with several photographs of businesses within the City that were not in compliance with the Masonry Ordinance. (Cross Keys, Target, Value City, K-Mart and True Value Hardware.)
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD: The Petitioner has attempted to do everything it can to address residential concerns. On the south will be a white vinyl fence, along with a 20 foot landscape buffer.
Section and sight line cuts through the site illustrate the location of residential property on top of the hill, the sight line of someone in the rear yard of this house and what they are able to see. Ignoring the benefit of the foliage the ascending sight lines prohibit residents from looking down onto the site. Each sight line represents an elevation of 5 feet, which increases the height of the wall to 25 feet.
The 75 foot interval between the parking lot and the property line represents a substantial distance that exceeds the City's required setbacks.
The service area will be located on the side of the building and will be blocked by the mass in the structure. There is no heavy duty pavement and truck operations will be isolated to the dock area which faces the opposite side of residential.
Mr. Otto then provided the Commission with several photographs of businesses within the City with less desirable commercial/residential buffers.
TRASH ENCLOSURES: All trash enclosures will match the masonry on the building.
Mr. Otto then provided the Commission with several photographs of trash enclosures within the City constructed of materials that did not match the building, as required by code.
Jim Hessel asked Mr. Lum if he would provide him with an explanation of the comments within Staff's Report associated with the residents on Aqueduct, the location of the parking lot and the possibility of extending the vinyl fence? Mr. Lum stated that one of the things under consideration is the Screening Ordinance, which states that,
"There should be a 6 foot vinyl fence or a landscaped buffer yard between commercial property and residentially zoned property".
Therefore his belief is that for the purpose of screening the view from anywhere on the residential property to the development, the fence should be extended further to the west.
Mr. Otto stated that their assumption was that the Rose property already had an adequate buffer along the parameter, but to the extent that it does not, they will extend the fence all the way down to the corner.
Mr. Hessel asked the Petitioner if they had received anything in writing that expressed the owners' agreement with the proposed entrance for Lindbergh Plaza? Mr. Otto said that he did not have anything in writing at this time, although they will have to work through an agreement with the owners.
Mr. Hessel asked Mr. Lum if the City had talked with the owner of this property? Mr. Lum stated that he had spoken to the operator of the Halls Ferry Inn Jazz Cafe, although they do not have ownership in the strip center and were not a part of the negotiations.
Mr. Hessel suggested that the Petitioner put something in place prior to appearing before City Council. Mr. Hessel asked Mr. Lum when the current Masonry Ordinance had been adopted? Mr. Lum stated that he did not know when the full Masonry Ordinance came into effect, although the earliest dates for the code is Ordinance No. 49.26 in 1988; Ordinance No. 53.18 in 1992; Ordinance No. 62.24 in 1999; Ordinance No. 74.37 in 2007 and Ordinance No. 76.71 in 2010.
Daniel Call stated that the current ordinance was only two or three years old.
Phil Lum noted that at the time of the Shop N Save construction Staff's Report had included a checklist which indicates that at least a certain percentage of the building must be masonry wall.
Mr. Otto stated that the B-5 Ordinances for Target and Cross Keys both addressed modifications to the Masonry Ordinance. (Target was developed in 1995 and Cross Keys was developed in 2003.)
Phil Lum further explained that as it is written today, in a B-5 rezoning each project is site-specific with respect to the Masonry Ordinance. The only body that can approve the use of materials other than natural stone and brick, as defined in the ASTM reference standard, is City Council.
Jim Hessel stated that while this is not a sticking point for him, there was a concern expressed at the last meeting regarding whether the outlot would be restricted to the use of a sit-down/carry-out restaurant. Mr. Otto stated that while the outlot has been sized large enough to accommodate a sit-down/carry-out restaurant he did not want to represent that the Petitioner is committed to a restaurant since he is unable to project the way things will go in this economy. He stated that the language they had originally proposed included general merchandise, which they anticipated would also apply to the outlot.
Mr. Otto noted that the language presented in the Proposed B-5 also referred to Wal-Mart as being a retail center, which is not a defined term in the code. Therefore the Petitioner had asked for permission to be classified as a department store, general merchandise store and a grocery store.
Phil Lum agreed that a retail center did not appear in the list of definitions under 405.035, but did appear under 405.225 with regard to the calculation of parking spaces. Although the City will work through this with the Petitioner, he stated that there might be a need to clarify the code with respect to a retail center as it relates to the uses permitted in the Zoning Code.
Jim Hessel asked Mr. Lum if the City required a written document from the two parties regarding the proposed entrance for Lindbergh Plaza? Mr. Lum stated that the City would prefer some form of written document and would work with the developer to get assurances of the owner and the approval by MoDOT. He stated that the Commission could stipulate that such an agreement be a part of the development.
Daniel Call stated that the City Attorney had indicated that the entrance to the strip mall was not a part of this site and therefore is not a matter that has to be considered in approving these plans. Mr. Lum stated that that was also his recollection. However it would be valuable information for Council if this could be worked out ahead of time.
Mr. Call asked the Petitioner if an 8 foot vinyl fence was being installed, rather than a 6 foot fence as outlined in Staff's Report? Mr. Otto stated that they certainly have no problem with installing an 8 foot fence, although his review of the code this evening revealed that there is a 6 foot height restriction. Mr. Call stated that his only concern was that the drawings reflected the work that was actually being performed and that it corresponded with the proposed motion for the development. Phil Lum stated that Staff's Report reflects that Drawing SL-2 shows an existing 4 foot chain-link fence and a proposed 8 foot high vinyl fence where the sight line goes up above the building. The existing grade goes up to the house and if a person is standing in or next to the house the sight line changes and creates the possibility for a line of sight that looks at the building. Vegetation will assist with screening, but the required dimensions between plantings may create gaps similar to those at Cross Keys where you can see through. Mr. Lum further noted that screening of any visible rooftop equipment is required if they are below a parapet wall.
Mr. Otto stated that they would take the more conservative and effective approach by utilizing an 8 foot fence. Mr. Lum stated that staff was not capable of making such a change since the Ordinance does not support it, but since it is a customized development it might be an appropriate exception for City Council to make.
Daniel Call asked the Petitioner if he was satisfied with the language that appears on page 1 of the Proposed Motion;
"The uses permitted for this property shall be limited to a retail center and restaurant, sit-down, carry-out in the outlot, and other uses listed as permitted uses in the B-3 Extensive Business District"?
Phil Lum noted that the Proposed Motion also states, "Other uses shall require approval by amendment to this B-5 Ordinance". Mr. Otto questioned whether the language pertained to uses other than those in the B-3? Mr. Lum stated that that was correct. Mr. Otto stated that since the option he is seeking is a sit-down restaurant and other retail, as permitted by a B-3, he would be fine with the language as it is currently written.
Daniel Call asked the Petitioner if the location of the advanced flasher signal would be close to the crest of the hill?
Shawn Wright (phonetic), appeared before the Commission and stated that while the signal will obviously be somewhere near the crest of the hill, once it reaches the point of design the true location will be based on a function of the speed on the roadway, the placement of detectors and MoDOT guidelines.
Mr. Call suggested that paragraph 6(d)(2) on page 2 of the Proposed Motion be amended to include "Subject to MoDOT approval".
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if there was a wall associated with the delivery area? Mr. Otto stated that there would be a wall extending all the way around the truck well.
Mr. Weller asked for an explanation of the Sheet C-2 grading plan comments found at Paragraph C on the second page of Staff's Report?
Phil Lum stated that the elevation 528 to 515 will be coming down the hill towards the creek; entering you are at 528, when you reach the bottom of the ramp you're at 515. Mr. Weller asked if there was a 13 foot drop? Mr. Lum stated that it is a curving entrance drive so there is a 15 foot drop across the outlot.
Mr. Weller asked if the shopping cart racks had been included in the configurations for the parking requirements? Mr. Otto stated that there would be approximately seven carts that had not been included in the calculations.
Mr. Weller highlighted several structures located within the vicinity that had complied with the Masonry Ordinance; Walgreen's, Lindbergh Business Center, Shop N Save, Lindbergh Plaza, Lindbergh Center, Burger King and McDonald's. Mr. Otto advised Commissioner Weller that the outlot would house a full masonry building because it can be readily viewed by the public. However the Ordinance recognizes that buildings greater than 20,000 square feet have the option of not utilizing masonry entirely. He stated that many of the large box examples that he provided demonstrate that option mainly due to the service areas located behind these buildings that are not readily accessible and viewed by the public. Mr. Weller stated that Wal-Mart would be 365 degrees visible when the leaves are off the trees. And in his opinion masonry adds class to the City which is why he believes that the Ordinance should be enforced.
Mr. Weller then asked whether irrigation would be provided for the landscaped areas? Mr. Otto stated that it would be.
Lee Baranowski stated that in his opinion the vinyl fence should remain at 8 feet.
He then questioned whether the compactor would handle all of Wal-Mart's trash? Mr. Otto stated that it would handle everything, with the exception of recycling which will be conducted in the recycling area. Mr. Baranowski asked what type of material would be used for the south wall? Mr. Otto stated that the wall on the north elevation would be brick and the south elevation would be split-faced block.
Mr. Baranowski questioned the design of the proposed driveway located in the far upper right on the drawing? Mr. Lum advised Commissioner Baranowski that that was part of the preliminary proposal for the Halls Ferry Inn site. Mr. Baranowski stated that the fact that they are not showing the old driveway being blocked off really scares him. Mr. Lum advised Commissioner Baranowski that this was not a part of the project, although the removal of one and installation of the other is likely going to be required by MoDOT since you cannot have two entrances onto a highway.
Mr. Otto stated that what is presented is what is preferred by both property owners, as well as the owner of the auto repair. Mr. Baranowski stated that in his opinion this proposal should sit on a table until MoDOT grants approval and lays out how it should be handled.
Phil Lum reminded Commissioner Baranowski of prior discussions where it was determined not to be appropriate for Planning and Zoning to base a stipulation on processes of regulatory approval such as MSD, MoDOT or County Highway, that could take a lengthy amount of time. Jane Boyle advised Mr. Baranowski that Commissioner Call had proposed the following addition to the Proposed Motion under "Road Improvements, Access and Sidewalks".
3. "The Petitioner, in concert with the City of Florissant, Missouri and MoDOT, shall work with the owners of Lindbergh Plaza to resolve issues regarding the entrance drive at 3401 North Highway 67."
Lee Baranowski expressed his approval of the proposed amendment.
Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum if 6 a.m. was the scheduled start time for trash pick-up in the City? Mr. Lum stated that Section 220.170, Hours of Pick-up in Commercial Areas, reads;
"No person licensed to collect garbage or rubbish as set out in Section 221.10 shall do so at any time except between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. in a commercial area, the boundaries of which are within 500 feet of a residence".
Mr. Weller asked the Petitioner if they would be in compliance with this section of the Code? Mr. Otto stated that they would be.
Mr. Weller questioned why corporations of this magnitude did not have all of these issues worked out in advance so that cities would not have to play the role of the step-child, and then be asked to vote on something that they have no idea what the outcome is going to be? Mr. Otto stated that very detailed construction plans have been prepared for the site work, road work and structure, which will be subject to further review and compliance with the City's codes and ordinances. But currently all the Petitioner seeks is to rezone the property for their intended use, which is really the process in all communities.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner for an explanation of why there was a break in the landscaping on the east side of the Site Plan? Mr. Otto stated that the height of the retaining wall in that area hinders visibility of the landscaping. Ms. Boyle questioned whether the landscaping was located on the outside of the retaining wall? Mr. Otto stated that it was, and that he would be willing to eliminate the break and add more landscaping. Ms. Boyle stated that even though this area is not within the City of Florissant, it is the City's closest neighbor and in all fairness the landscaping should continue.
Paul Stock asked the Petitioner when the outlot would be developed? Mr. Otto stated that some businesses prefer to open concurrently with their larger partners, so once Wal-Mart gets closer to construction you should start to see more activity on the lot.
Lee Baranowski asked the Petitioner where all the water from this development would runoff? Mr. Otto stated that Sheets C-2 and C-3 illustrate several points where the stormwater is picked up off of the building and carried to the two underground storage vaults.
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 to rezone from the B-3 and M-2 Zoning Districts to a B-5 Zoning District to allow for a new retail center and outlot for the property located at 3360 & 3400 North Highway 67 and 3605 Seville; Wal-Mart per the Proposed Motion Revised October 10, 2011 and the following amendments to said motion:
Page 1 - I move to recommend approval of a B-5 Rezoning to allow a Retail Center and Outlot according to plans presented by THF Florissant Development, LLC, including:
(c) Site Lighting Photometric Plan PH-1.1.
Page 2 - (d) Road Improvements Access and Sidewalks
(2) There shall be a traffic light warning signal for eastbound traffic along US Highway 67, a minimum of 400 feet from the main entrance signal, subject to MoDOT approval.
(3) The Petitioner, in concert with the City of Florissant, Missouri and MoDOT, shall work with the owners of Lindbergh Plaza to resolve issues regarding the entrance drive at 3401 North Highway 67.
Page 2 - Landscaping and Fencing
(2) The 8 foot vinyl fence shown on Drawing C-1 shall be extended to the intersection of Azimuths N00 degrees, 35 minutes, 23 seconds east and south 89 degrees, 46 minutes, 17 seconds west.
(3) Landscaping on the east side of the development shown on Drawing L-1 and dated January 7, 2011, shall be expanded to include the entire parameter of the development.
Page 3 - Miscellaneous Design Criteria
(2) The facades of the retail building shall be clay fired brick with a trespa metal panel system sign band on the front. Any deviation to the masonry requirements must be approved by City Council.
The motion was seconded by Daniel Call and on roll call the Commission voted: Stock no, Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel yes, Weller no and Baranowski yes. VOTE: 4 TO 2; MOTION CARRIES.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Paul Stock stated that he voted against the Petition because he would like to see a full masonry wall.
NEW BUSINESS:
Item 2 1475 Dunn Road
PZ101711-2 AT&T Mobility
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL - Ward 7
Request Recommended Approval of a
Special Use Permit to Allow
Installation of a New Antenna Support
Structure and Equipment in a B-5
Zoning District.
The Chair stated Item Number Two on the Agenda, AT&T Mobility, located at 1475 Dunn Road; request recommended approval of a Special Use Permit to allow installation of a new antenna support structure and equipment in a B-5 Zoning District.
Daniel Call announced the need to recuse himself from this Petition for several reasons. (1). He is on the Board of Directors for the Florissant Area Athletic Association who currently has an AT&T tower on their site and receives monies for the lease. (2). The Association has been in discussions this year with Black & Veatch regarding the installation of another tower at the park.
Mary Kreps of Black & Veatch appeared before the Commission and stated that AT&T is currently on an existing flagpole tower located at the front of Grandview Plaza. Their current need is to add an antenna for their 4G technology however the existing pole is full. When this occurs AT&T must look for another opportunity to relocate and build a new tower.
The difficulty of relocating a pole is that there is an existing network that the current pole covers, so they have to stay within a certain range. There are no other towers or existing structures available in the Grandview Plaza area, and management was non-responsive to AT&T's request to build a new tower. Ms. Kreps stated that AT&T had also contacted McCluer High School and the Bowling Alley however both landowners declined to negotiate a lease.
Storage Banc accepted their offer and had enough property; a 56 X 43 foot area, to place a 100 foot monopole and equipment shelter in the northeast corner of their facility. The design will include a retaining wall to the north and east, a chain-link fence, and a gate that will be locked for security. The tower was placed at the rear of the building because it is in a low traffic area near green space and a retention pond. It is also less visible to the road frontage. There is a tree line along one side that blocks the view from the residential neighborhood.
The monopole will be built to accommodate two additional users, which is in line with the City's requirement for co-location.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if the tower inventory listed under Exhibit D in the presentation folder represented only AT&T towers? Ms. Kreps stated that they did not. Ms. Boyle noted that there were other towers in the area that are not included in this list, i.e., Parker Road, St. Catherine. Ms. Kreps stated that they were required to list the towers within one half mile of the City limits however she would be willing to supplement the list. She added that the list was obtained from the FCC registration database and that a lot of towers are not registered with the FCC because they are not over 200 feet.
Lee Baranowski asked the Petitioner if the tower would be 100 feet from the closest building? Ms. Kreps stated that it would not be 100 feet from the storage building, but she would be happy to provide a structural letter regarding the strength of the tower.
Phil Lum advised Commissioner Baranowski that the regulations for a tower on commercial to residential, is the height of the tower, but for commercial to commercial there is only a 25 foot setback. Mr. Baranowski noted that there were apartments behind the tower. Ms. Kreps stated that the tower is 196 feet from the residential property.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if the tower at Grandview Plaza would be moved? Ms. Kreps stated that the tower was not owned by AT&T. Mr. Weller asked for the location of AT&T's closest tower? Ms. Kreps stated that it was located near Gateway Christian College.
Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum for the relevance of the list? Mr. Lum stated that all Petitioners are required to provide a list of existing towers prior to presenting their Petition for a Special Use to ensure that they have given consideration to utilizing these locations.
Mr. Lum then asked the Petitioner if it was possible for them to locate on any of the towers within one half mile of the City limits? Ms. Kreps stated that since AT&T is currently on the Grandview tower doing so would create a hole in this area. She stated that flagpoles are difficult to add equipment too because you are limited by the diameter of the pole and there is only a certain amount of vertical space that can be utilized.
Dick Weller asked if the new tower would create more capacity? Ms. Kreps stated that the tower would create capacity and coverage. Mr. Weller asked if AT&T would have a Cross-Access Agreement? Ms. Kreps stated that their lease would grant them access to the tower. Mr. Weller noted that the tower was in the landing pattern for a runway at Lambert. Ms. Kreps stated that all of their towers receive FAA approval.
Jim Hessel asked the Petitioner if it was possible to remove the older technology from their Grandview location and replace it with the newer technology? Ms. Kreps stated that there are three technologies currently being used by AT&T and the Grandview tower houses their GSM and UMTS technology, which is still in use, as well as another carrier. Mr. Hessel asked how much of the tower would be visible to the residents on the north side? Ms. Kreps stated that there is a retention pond and to the west there is a tree line which extends above the roof line of these homes. So residents to the west probably will not notice the tower because of the trees. Although it will be more visible for the residents located in the apartments to the north, here again, there are trees along that property line along with utility lines.
Mr. Hessel asked for the difference between the two towers? Ms. Kreps stated that a monopole tower will have a triangular platform at the top and can handle up to twelve antennas on each platform. The flagpole has no antennas so when you attempt to upgrade the technology it is much more difficult to fit it in.
Paul Stock asked Mr. Lum if the Commission should be concerned with the drawings that illustrate the anchorage of the peers for the pole? Mr. Lum stated that the calculations are typically code reviewed for permit. Ms. Kreps stated that they normally will do a geo-tech for the soil report and then design a foundation and tower based on that report, which is submitted along with the Building Permit.
Mr. Lum stated that the foundation drawings usually would not affect the most critical factor for Planning and Zoning, which is the impact on the neighborhood as it relates to a foundation which will change in depth, depending on the soil report.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if the antennas would be exposed? Ms. Kreps stated that they would be. Mr. Weller asked if the highest antenna would be 100 feet? Ms. Kreps stated that the antenna ray would be at 97 feet, and any additions would fall below that point.
Phil Lum stated that if a special use is granted the Commission should consider whether screening of the equipment is required. He added that it is customary to provide a sight-proof fence of at least 6 feet. Ms. Kreps stated that they would be agreeable to providing a sight-proof fence around the tower.
Commissioners Boyle, Weller and Hessel agreed that a sight-proof fence was adequate and that no additional landscaping would 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 a Special Use Permit to allow installation of a new antenna support structure and equipment in a B-5 Zoning District for the property located at 1475 Dunn Road; AT&T, with the following stipulation: that the tower be screened by a 6 foot vinyl fence. Seconded by Jim Hessel and on roll call the Commission voted: Stock yes, Boyle yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carries.
[Daniel Call returns to the Commission]
Item 3 390 West St. Anthony
PZ101711-3 Training Up A Child
APPROVED - Ward 5
Request Approval of a 6 Foot
Vinyl Fence in a B-3 Zoning
District.
The Chair stated Item Number Three on the Agenda, Training Up A Child located at 390 West St. Anthony; request approval of a 6 foot vinyl fence in a B-3 Zoning District.
Kebra Henderson appeared before the Commission and stated that currently there is a chain-link fence located at the rear and front property lines and a vinyl fence on the south side of the building. Ms. Henderson stated that her desire is to separate this commercial property from her residential neighbors by adding an additional vinyl fence.
Paul Stock asked the Petitioner if she would be installing a 5 foot vinyl fence to close off the stairs? Ms. Henderson stated that there is an existing vinyl fence at this location. Mr. Stock asked if the chain-link fence would be removed? Ms. Henderson stated that it would be.
Jim Hessel asked the Petitioner if the new vinyl fence would match the existing vinyl fence? Ms. Henderson stated that it would.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner for the height of the existing vinyl fence? Ms. Henderson stated that it was 6 feet. Mr. Weller asked if the City had required the installation of additional vinyl fencing? Ms. Henderson stated that they had.
Phil Lum informed the Commission that the City had informed Ms. Henderson of the screening requirement between her commercially zoned property and her next door neighbor which is residentially zoned.
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 approve the erection of a 6 foot vinyl fence for the property located at 390 West St. Anthony; Training Up A Child, per approval by the Building Commissioner. Seconded by Paul Stock and on roll call the Commission voted: Stock yes, Call yes, Boyle yes, Hessel yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carries.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Item 4 Review New Dates for Training With Attorney John Hessel & City Clerk Karen Goodwin: November 21st or 22nd, 2011.
Phil Lum stated that he had been contacted by the City Attorney and advised that he would be unavailable on the dates previously purposed and therein provided new dates for your consideration. Mr. Lum stated that at that time he also suggested that the City Clerk provide the Commission with a refresher course on parliamentary procedures.
Jane Boyle suggested that training be conducted after a new Commission member is selected.
Phil Lum stated that other commissions had expressed an interest in attending the session on parliamentary procedure and questioned whether this Commission would be amenable to them attending their session?
The Commission expressed no problem with opening the meeting to other commission members and set a temporary date;
contingent upon the appointment of a new commission member, of November 22, 2011 at 7 p.m.
Item 5 Future Meetings
Based on the perceived absence of several commission members Lee Baranowski made a motion to cancel the November 7th meeting. Seconded by Jim Hessel. All parties concur and the motion carried.
The next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will be held on November 21, 2011.
The next City Council Representative for the meeting held on October 24, 2011, will be Lee Baranowski.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Ms. Boyle made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Daniel Call and all parties concur. The meeting is adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
