Planning and Zoning

Meetings and Agendas

MINUTES

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

OCTOBER 3, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS                        PAGE NO.

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

Announcements/Comments                          Page 2

Under Old Business

400 West Washington
Commercial Bank                                 Page 2-4

3350 & 3400 North Highway 67
and 3605 Seville
Walmart                                         Page 4-5

Under New Business

2678 North Highway 67
Dairy Queen                                     Page 5-12

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

Future Meetings                                 Page 12

Commission Training                        Page 12-13

Child Daycare Centers                           Page 13

Bangert Park                                    Page 13

                PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

          The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, October 3, 2011 at 7:00 p.m., with Jim Ross presiding.
          On roll call the following members were present: Jim Ross, Jane Boyle, Dick Weller, Daniel Call, Paul Stock and Lee Baranowski. 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 Hessel is excused from attendance at tonight's meeting.

          Jim Ross stated that the next order of business would be approval of the minutes for the September 19, 2011 meeting. Hearing no amendments Jim Ross made a motion to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Paul Stock. All parties concur and the motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS:

Item 1        400 West Washington
PZ081511-2    Commercial Bank
              APPROVED - Ward 5
              Request Recommended Approval to
              Amend Special Use Ordinance No. 5974
              to Allow for a 10' by 10' Electronic
              Sign in an R-4 Zoning District.

          The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, Commercial Bank located at 400 West Washington; request recommended approval to amend Special Use Ordinance No. 5974 to allow for a 10' by 10' electronic sign in an R-4 Zoning District.
          Dennis Caldwell appeared before the Commission and stated that after speaking with Mr. Lum and going through the recommendations from the previous meeting, he wished to proceed. The Petition is for a replacement 10' by 10' sign, with a full color, two-sided message center.

He stated that if and when the Ordinance is revised the sign can be changed to a static message. The top is double-faced replicating exactly what exists today.
          Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the only messages displayed would be bank-related? Mr. Caldwell stated that they would also like to display community announcements. Mr. Ross asked if the LED rate was 25 percent? Mr. Caldwell stated that that was correct.
          Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if 25 percent conformed to the code? Mr. Lum stated that currently there is no percentage that it has to comply with.
          Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if the colors could be changed to comply with any forthcoming revisions to the Ordinance? Mr. Caldwell stated that they could be.
          Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if he would elaborate on Item Number 3 under Staff's Analysis.
"The Council has tabled the consideration of a proposed Ordinance amendment, which means that there is to be a motion to bring it back from table for consideration again."

          Mr. Lum stated that this is a misstatement since Council has taken no action on this item. The proposal was discussed in Executive Session, but it was thought that staff needed to conduct more research. As a result, Mr. Lum stated that he has since been in contact with a digital sign consultant who has written numerous digital sign ordinances, rather than relying solely on the recommendation from the City Attorney. Subsequently, staff may revise the recommendations previously submitted to Council, although it will take some time before it is presented to them again.
          Mr. Lum stated that he had also conferred with the City Attorney on how the revisions would impact existing signs. Should Council adopt these revisions then all existing signs will have to come into compliance. He further noted that the recommendations from staff and the deliberations by Council should take digital signs that are currently under permit into consideration.
          Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if staff's suggested motion dated September 27, 2011 was still applicable? Mr. Lum stated that as far as staff is concerned it is.
          Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if Commercial Bank was fully aware of the proposed revisions to the Ordinance? Mr. Caldwell stated that they were.
          Paul Stock asked the Petitioner if the sign would be set up to scroll? Mr. Caldwell stated that while the sign has the capacity to scroll the bank is ultimately in charge of its operation.
          Daniel Call asked the Petitioner if the existing electrical wiring was capable of handling the new sign? Mr. Caldwell stated that it was.
          Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if the proposed sign was identical to the existing sign in height and width? Mr. Caldwell stated that it would be.
          Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if the brightness could also be controlled by the bank? Mr. Caldwell stated that it could be.
          Mr. Weller suggested that the 10 second time lapse between messages be included with the Commission's recommendation.
          Lee Baranowski stated that he also had a concern about the brightness of the sign. He then asked the Petitioner for an explanation of the 1 1/2 foot tall pole cover illustrated on the drawing? Mr. Caldwell stated that the pole cover or skirt covers up the structure that the sign is mounted to.
          Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment to Special Use Ordinance No. 5974 to allow for a 10' by 10' electronic sign in an R-4 Zoning District for the property located at 400 West Washington; Commercial Bank, as per the suggested motion dated September 27, 2011, and with the following stipulation: that the operation of the sign be restricted to a 10 second time lapse between messages. Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Stock yes, Boyle yes, Call yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.

Item 2        3350 & 3400 North Highway 67
              and 3605 Seville
              Walmart
              CONTINUED - Ward 9
              Request Recommended Approval to
              Rezone From B-3 & M-2 Zoning to B-5
              Zoning District to Allow for a New
              Retail Center and Outlot.

          The Chair stated Item Number One on the Agenda, Walmart, located at 3360 & 3400 North Highway 67 and 3605 Seville; request recommended approval to rezone from B-3 and M-2 Zoning to B-5 Zoning District to allow for a new retail center and outlot.
          Jim Ross announced that the Petitioner requested that this Petition be continued to the October 17th meeting.
          Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to continue this item to the October 17, 2011 meeting. Seconded by Paul Stock. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, Stock yes, Boyle yes, Call yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS:

Item 3         2678 North Highway 67
PZ100311-1    Dairy Queen
              MOTION FAILS - Ward 9
              Request Recommended Approval to
              Amend an Existing Special Use to
              Allow for the Exterior Remodel of an
              Existing Sit-Down/Carry-Out Restaurant
              with EFIS over existing masonry in a
              B-4 Zoning District.

          The Chair stated Item Number Three on the Agenda, Dairy Queen, located at 2678 North Highway 67; request recommended approval to amend an existing special use to allow for the exterior remodel of an existing sit-down, carry-out restaurant with EFIS over existing masonry in a B-4 Zoning District.
          David Greer appeared before the Commission and stated that he was requesting permission to establish a Grill and Chill; the new Diary Queen concept.
          Mr. Greer stated that Diary Queen has been in existence since the 1940(s), where it started off as ice cream only. The North Highway 67 location opened in 1957 as ice cream only and the kitchen was added in the late '70(s) to make it a Dairy Queen Brazier restaurant. The drive-through was added in 1981.
          Mr. Greer stated that he has operated this location for nineteen years, takes pride in what he does, and therefore would like to make new improvements for his customers and the community.
          Mr. Greer then displayed a photograph of the old logo, the proposed new logo which has been approved by International Diary Queen, and the new Grill and Chill prototype.
          He stated that to accomplish this new look, the logo would have to be moved and the words Grill and Chill added. The furniture and soda station will be upgraded; windows in front of the production area will be relocated and awnings will be installed over the drive-through window. The size of the building will remain the same, and the existing fence will be painted the same color as the building.
          The current color of the building is red and white, the proposed color is light brown/tan. The interior color will be painted to match the exterior. All parking spaces will remain, and the lot will be resealed and striped.
          Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if Dairy Queen dictated what renovations were permissible? Mr. Greer stated that they did.
          Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if the Commission was simply tasked with reviewing the exterior of the building? Mr. Lum stated that the interior was not a zoning issue.
          Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if he was aware of the City's Masonry Ordinance? Mr. Greer stated that he was.
          Mr. Ross then asked Mr. Lum if this project complied with the City's Ordinance? Mr. Lum stated that the original painted brick is not in compliance and neither is the current proposal. He stated that the structure is in a pre-existing, non-conforming condition, which was completed prior to the Masonry Ordinance. However under the Masonry Ordinance even changing the color would require the approval of Council.
          Jim Ross asked the Petitioner why the parent company had recommended EIFS over brick? Mr. Greer stated that the EIFS would be on top of the brick and only utilized to eliminate the Mansard roof, which is being replaced with a straight roof.   Mr. Ross asked what was being proposed for the sign? Mr. Greer stated that it would remain in its current location. The new logo will be inserted and the skirt covering the pole will be painted black. He stated that he was also interested in an electronic reader board.
          Mr. Ross informed the Petitioner that any revisions to the sign would have to be addressed at a later time. Mr. Greer stated that he was only changing the master logo.
          Phil Lum agreed that the sign was being presented as a face change however any requests for a digital sign would require approval.
          Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if he could change the material used for the trash enclosure? Mr. Greer stated that he would have to get approval from Dairy Queen.
          Lee Baranowski stated that in his opinion the biggest hang up appears to be the request for EIFS, although it had been allowed at Dierberg's and Taco Bell.
          Phil Lum advised the Commission that it was real important to understand what is being presented. The dark brown stripe on the renderings are specified as brown, so the existing brick will be painted dark brown. And then there is a tan color that will also be used to paint the existing brick wall. The mansard roof is being removed and replaced with EIFS panels to form a parapet, which may be splitting hairs since this might be constituted as a parapet wall. However, if it is considered to be a wall, the zoning would have to be changed to B-5 which is the only district where materials other than brick are allowed.
     Mr. Lum stated that his interpretation is that the Petitioner it not replacing masonry with EIFS and that he needs Council approval, as well as this Commission's recommendation, to paint the masonry for a preexisting, non-conforming structure.
          Mr. Greer agreed with Mr. Lum's interpretation.
          Jim Ross stated that even though this is non-conforming, the fact that the Petitioner is now making renovations would seem to trigger these masonry, EIFS and painted brick issues based upon what the code is today? Mr. Lum stated that they would be issues if this was a wall.
          Paul Stock stated that according to the drawing the roof level is still going to be at the bottom of the red, which would render the renovation to be a wall. The roofing material then would be placed onto the wall. Mr. Stock then asked the Petitioner if the rubber roof would be carried up to the top on the backside and lapped under the coping? Mr. Greer stated that that was correct.
          Phil Lum stated that in his opinion since it is a nonstructural wall it depends on the intent; on the back side it's a roof, on the front side it's a wall.
          Lee Baranowski asked the Petitioner if there was a rooftop cooling system? Mr. Greer stated that there were two. Mr. Baranowski stated that in his opinion the renovation is to the parapet wall used for screening. So the question then becomes can EIFS be used for screening? Mr. Lum stated that it could be used because it is not considered a wall. He added that the EIFS was a more decorative element of the mansard roof.
          Mr. Lum stated that if it is a building wall, i.e., a supporting structure, then it would have to be rezoned to B-5, because that is the only condition upon which you can get a wall material this is not masonry approved by Council.
          Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum if Council could approve the request for painting the brick? Mr. Lum stated that they could.
          Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if the only signage would be located on the front? Mr. Greer stated that that was correct. The Dairy Queen logos on the left and right side of the building, as well as all of the yellow reader boards will be removed.   Mr. Weller asked if the surface would be power washed before it is painted? Mr. Greer stated that he had hired a general contractor who has conducted several Dairy Queen revisions so he believed that it would be.
          Mr. Weller asked if there would be (12) new plantings located on a section of the drive-through? Mr. Greer stated that the drawing illustrates the existing shrubbery that was just approved by the City within the last year.
          Mr. Weller asked Mr. Lum if the existing (4) bushes were in compliance? Mr. Lum stated that since the Special Use Permit shows (12), then that's what it has to be, unless there is an amendment to the permit.
          Mr. Greer stated that the heat of the asphalt had killed the other plants, but he was willing to comply with the Commission's recommendations for adding more.
          Mr. Weller asked the Petitioner if the EIFS would be the same height as the existing Mansard? Mr. Greer stated that it would be. Mr. Weller asked if the parapet would extend to the back of the building? Mr. Greer stated that it was only on three sides. Mr. Weller suggested that the parapet be extended to the rear of the building because it can be viewed by the shops, pedestrians and residential traffic.
          Mr. Weller questioned whether there would be lights over the display panels mounted into the EIFS? Mr. Greer stated that there would be. Mr. Weller asked if the front lights would be located in the overhang? Mr. Greer stated that that was correct.
          Jane Boyle asked Mr. Lum if the square footage of the sign complied with the Ordinance? Mr. Lum stated anything under 40 square feet is within Ordinance. Ms. Boyle asked if there could be two 40 foot signs? Mr. Lum stated that if DQ and the Grill and Chill are a part of the sign identification then both would be considered as one, which would exceed 40 square feet. Both of the signs appear to be under 100 square feet, and require a Special Use Permit, which is a part of the presentation.
          Ms. Boyle stated that she had been unable to find any measurements for either of the two signs. Mr. Greer stated that there are four different dimensions that can be used, so they were purposely omitted to allow him leeway to get the biggest sign the Commission would approve.
          Phil Lum stated that if DQ and Grill and Chill are all a part of the business name, then both signs together would have to be a maximum of 100 square feet.
          Jane Boyle stated that she was concerned that we not exceed the regulations on the combination of the two signs, which in her opinion looks excessive in the drawing.
          Mr. Lum stated that in the drawing there is a dimension from the top of the tower down to the parapet wall of 3 feet. So he would take the height of the Grill and Chill sign to be a little bit less than 3 feet and the DQ sign to be more than 3 feet. Using that as the dimension he can pretty confidently say that the Grill and Chill and DQ signs are approximately 30 square feet, which is well under the 100 foot requirement.
          Ms. Boyle stated that her recommendation would be that the signs be limited to their current dimensions.
          She stated that it was also her belief that the Ordinance requires a vinyl fence for screening trash enclosures.
          Phil Lum stated that the Ordinance does not require vinyl, although this Commission has consistently made the request for many businesses, although not in every case. Mr. Lum stated that the Screening Ordinance says that the material used shall be compatible with the existing building.
          Ms. Boyle asked the Petitioner if the white panels on the front of the building represented windows that would be covered? Mr. Greer stated that that was correct. Ms. Boyle asked what would be added to the panels to fill in the space left from the windows? Mr. Greer stated that EIFS would be used here as well. Ms. Boyle stated that she did not want to see any more EIFS added to the building other than what had been slated for the top.
          Daniel Call asked the Petitioner if anything was being done to the rear of the building? Mr. Greer stated that it would be painted to match the other three sides. Mr. Call stated that since the back side is already open he did not see a reason to request that the roof be extended to all four sides. He stated that in his opinion it serves no purpose, it is not structural and there does not appear to be any complaints.
          Phil Lum stated that the only complaints he is aware of are the landscaping, which the Petitioner has already dressed. Mr. Lum agreed that the landscaping as it currently exists; not what is on the plans, had been approved by Public Works.
          Paul Stock stated that his only concern is how the base of the wall is going to attach to the existing brick, because it is going to catch a lot of wind.
          Phil Lum stated that if you consider the red portion a wall, then the stipulation would be that all the red, blue and dark brown portions would have to be masonry.
          Daniel Call stated that as it exists today those portions are not masonry. Mr. Lum stated that that was correct, it is lawfully nonconforming, preexisting.
          Dick Weller stated that based on the Petitioner's statement regarding the available sign options he would be concerned about the appearance of a sign that extended above the top of the parapet wall in the front. Mr. Greer stated that it would not extend that far.
          Mr. Weller stated that with respect to his earlier suggestion that the parapet be extended to the rear of the building, his belief is that there is pedestrian traffic located in the back of the building. He stated that in all of the areas of development that he has experienced sitting on this Commission the rooftop units have been enclosed.
          Mr. Greer stated that the square footage behind his building is limited to one lane of traffic with parking, and even if you step back to the strip portion you can really only see one of the units. Mr. Weller suggested that the one visible unit be screened. Mr. Greer stated that he would be amenable to doing so.
          Phil Lum stated that while any screening should be out of compatible material, whether you can see the units from neighboring commercial property is not the issue. The issue on screening is that it must be screened from view from any residentially zoned properties or from the right-of-way.
          Mr. Greer stated that it could not be seen from Trotter Way.
          Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if he had a specific size for the two signs to be installed? Mr. Greer stated that they would be comparable to what is illustrated on the drawing.
          Lee Baranowski stated that in his opinion, the DQ appears to be aesthetically too large. Mr. Greer stated that he had felt the same way himself until he had seen it at another location where it looked incredible. Mr. Baranowski stated that the DQ portion of the sign is overlapping the white portion on the EIFS. And his thought is that some of the red between the sign and its borders should be seen.
          Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if he was comfortable moving forward with a recommendation this evening or whether he would like time to give further consideration to the project? Mr. Greer stated that his belief is that the building is very appealing and that the residents will love this project. So since he has no problems with the suggested changes to the trash enclosure he was comfortable with moving forward.
          Mr. Ross stated that in his opinion the biggest concern evolves the masonry/EIFS concept. Mr. Greer stated that a change to brick would not be cost-effective.
          Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Ross made a motion to recommend approval to amend an existing special use to allow for the exterior remodel of an existing sit-down, carry-out restaurant with EFIS over existing masonry in a B-4 Zoning District for the property located at 2678 North Highway 67; Dairy Queen, per the Suggested Motion dated September 27, 2011. Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross no, Stock no, Boyle no, Call yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. VOTE: 3 TO 3; Motion Fails.

DISSENTING OPINIONS

          Jane Boyle stated that the reason she had voted against the Petition is because of the change in the front to the windows. She stated that she is not comfortable with adding more EIFS and the elimination of the windows stretched her limit. Ms. Boyle stated that outside of that she believes that the Petitioner has done a good job and that the renovation in and of itself, would be beneficial.

          Jim Ross stated that while he would also agree that the Petitioner had done a good job, the reason he had voted against the Petition was that he was not in favor of replacing brick; which has a longer life expectancy, with EIFS.

MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

Item 4    Future Meetings

          The next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will be held on Monday, October 17, 2011.

          The next Council representative for the meeting of October 10, 2011 is Paul Stock.

Item 5    Commission Training

          Lee Baranowski questioned whether there was a training session scheduled for tomorrow?
          Jim Ross stated that his understanding is that it had been scheduled for October the 18th.
          Phil Lum agreed with Commissioner Ross.
          The meeting is scheduled to start at 7:00 p.m.

Item 6    Child Daycare Centers

          Jane Boyle stated that the daycare facility located on St. Anthony off of Florissant Road had changed hands, and questioned whether approval was needed to do so?
          Phil Lum stated that he had met with the owner and since they had taken over the business within weeks of the previous owner leaving, it is considered a continuation of a preexisting, nonconforming use.

Item 7    Bangert Park

          Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum if he had ever been able to find out any information about the headstone located next to the communication tower in Bangert Park?
          Phil Lum stated that the headstone is on R-4 residential property that is not owned by the City. He stated that years ago the owner of the lot had requested permission to erect the monument on his own property as a First Amendment right.

          Mr. Weller stated that someone had also installed a 4 foot fence to the existing 8 or 6 foot fence around the shed.
          Phil Lum stated that he had not received notice of a change and would discuss the matter with them.

          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.