MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments Page 2
Under New Business
3350 & 3400 North Highway 67
and 3605 Seville
Walmart Page 3-14
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
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, September 19, 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, Lee Baranowski and Jim Hessel. Also present was Julia Bennett, Court Reporter, Phil Lum, Building Commissioner and John Hessel, City Attorney.
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, Jim Ross made a motion to adjourn the public meeting and go into Executive Session. Seconded by Daniel Call. On roll call the Commission voted: Ross yes, 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 7:25 p.m.]
ANNOUNCEMENTS/COMMENTS
Jim Hessel announced that he would not be in attendance at the October 3, 2011 meeting.
Jim Ross stated that the next order of business would be approval of the minutes for the August 15, 2011 meeting.
Phil Lum stated that the phonetic spelling of "Mitts" on Page 6 should be amended to read "Nitts," and that Page 7, which reads "Mr. Lum stated that there would be scrolling," should be amended to read, "Mr. Lum stated that there would be no scrolling".
Jane Boyle made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, seconded by Jim Hessel. All parties concur and the motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Item 1 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.
Jeff Otto of THF Florissant Development, LLC., appeared before the Commission and presented the following proposal:
THE PARCEL: The proposed development will be located on the south side of Lindbergh, east of Lowes and the Lindbergh Business Center.
BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS: The new 150,000 square foot Walmart will sit on approximately 25 acres, along with an outlot encompassing 2.4 acres. The proposed development for this lot is a full service sit-down restaurant.
The south side of the building will be utilized as an outdoor sales area enclosed by a decorative black fence and supported by masonry columns. A bulk storage area where rocks, potting soil, et cetera will be stored, is located to the east.
At the rear of the building will be a four-station loading dock, recycling area and trash compactor. The compactor is a completely enclosed system that is connected to the building. Trash is placed into the compactor from inside the store.
The recycling area will be enclosed on three sides by a 10 foot high masonry wall and a sliding gate on the fourth side. Recyclable items include cardboard, plastic and out-dated produce.
Two pharmacy drive-through lanes will be located on the north side of the building, along with a sidewalk that will provide pedestrian access from the intersection to the building.
BUILDING MATERIALS: The front of the building will have two main entrance vestibules. With the exception of the metal panel upon which the Walmart signage will be placed the entire front of the building will be masonry.
ACCESS: Access to the site will be accomplished through a new signalized intersection located at Sunswept. Three exit lanes will be designed for turning left, right or going straight. The site can also be accessed by a secondary drive located further to the west, designed solely for right-ins and right-outs. Both of these lanes will be serviced by deceleration lanes.
PARKING: The project is in full compliance with the City's requirements of 5 per 1,000, or 740 cars. Two additional handicapped spaces will be installed, exceeding City Code requirements.
STORMWATER: Underground detention will be contained in two vaults. A total of 7 rain gardens will be installed for water quality purposes.
A portion of the eastern edge of the site lies within the 100 year flood plain. In order to achieve a no-rise condition a flood plain detention area will be built to restore the same volume and storage capacity. This process will be monitored by FEMA and ultimately approved by the City of Florissant and St. Louis County.
PHOTOMETRICS: The site lighting plan illustrates the photometrics from the non-building mounted lighting which is standard light poles, 39 feet high on a 3 foot base. Wall mounted lights will be installed on the building to provide additional lighting levels. The foot candles along the main drive are 7.73, and 4.34 throughout the remainder of the lot. The minimum candle in the drive aisle is 4.6, and 1.9 throughout the remainder of the parking lot.
All lighting will be directed downward and the parameter lighting, particularly along the back, includes baffles to direct the lighting.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner when the outlot would be developed? Mr. Otto stated that the outlot would be a part of the total development, in that it will be fully serviced by utilities, water systems and access points. Their desire is to have both businesses open simultaneously.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if his report indicated that this would not be a complete masonry structure? Mr. Lum stated that the side elevations show the termination of the full wythe masonry at the garden center, and again on the right side of the building.
Mr. Otto added that from a square footage standpoint 51 percent of the building face will be full wythe masonry.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if this proposal met the City's Masonry Ordinance? Mr. Lum stated that the Ordinance indicates that all walls be constructed of masonry.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if there was a reason why all of the walls were not being constructed of masonry? Mr. Otto replied that the back of the building, as well as the sides, will face an undisturbed natural area that no one will see. Based on that fact, and the fact that they had spent a considerable amount of time exploring the costs associated with total compliance, the Petitioner concluded that the current proposal represents their best effort with respect to the Ordinance.
Phil Lum stated that under the B-5 any material that is not masonry as defined within the Building Code could only be approved by Council.
The City Attorney advised the Commission that their function is to make a recommendation to City Council as to whether or not they think it would be appropriate to grant an exception to the Ordinance.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if they had reviewed staff's suggestions with respect to the traffic study? Mr. Otto stated that they had, and as a result they would be installing a traffic signal warning light further up the hill.
Jim Ross asked the Petitioner if the access points were consistent with the recommendations made in the traffic study? Mr. Otto stated that they were.
Mr. Ross asked Mr. Lum if the Photometric Plan was acceptable to staff? Mr. Lum stated that his belief is that the Code sets a height limitation of 25 feet for light fixtures.
Mr. Ross asked the Petitioner if this would be a twenty-four hour facility? Mr. Otto stated that it would be.
Paul Stock asked the Petitioner for the approximate number of employees at this location? Mr. Otto stated that there would be approximately 100 employees per shift and a total of 300. Mr. Stock asked if there would be any early morning deliveries or trash disposal? Mr. Otto stated that although this type of activity will only occur on the northern side of the building; the furthest point from residential there would probably be some early morning traffic.
With the exception of the sign, Mr. Stock questioned whether all of the existing structures would be removed? Mr. Otto stated that they would be. Mr. Stock asked how the Trespa panels would be attached?
Jackie Kerhatby (phonetic) of SAIC appeared before the Commission and stated that there will be a channel system bolted to the masonry wall to which the panels will be bolted to the frame. Mr. Stock asked if they would be bolted into the masonry joints or if there was a separate anchor system? Ms. Kerhatby stated that it could be detailed either way. Mr. Stock questioned whether there would be any wind problems? Ms. Kerhatby stated that the panels are certified to withstand a 150 mile an hour wind.
Mr. Stock questioned whether the proposed traffic from the outlot had been included in the traffic study? Mr. Otto stated that it had been.
Jim Hessel asked the Petitioner if they had talked with the neighboring residential properties concerning the proposed development? Mr. Otto stated that the only person they had spoken with is the owner of the Auto Repair business across the street.
Mr. Hessel asked Mr. Lum if a 6 foot privacy fence between the commercial/residential property was in compliance with the Code? Mr. Lum stated that it was. Mr. Hessel asked the Petitioner what material would be used for the fence? Mr. Otto stated that it would be a wood fence.
Phil Lum advised the Petitioner that a vinyl fence is required between commercial and residential property. Mr. Otto stated that they had no issue with the recommended change.
Jim Hessel asked Mr. Lum if it was common for flood plain modifications to take place after the zoning had been approved? Mr. Lum stated that it was.
Mr. Hessel then asked the Petitioner if the process with FEMA had been initiated? Mr. Otto stated that the initial investigation and study as to the existence of wetlands has been completed. However no steps have been taken to embark upon the remaining processes, which will take place in three phases, until after the appropriate zoning has been approved. Mr. Otto stated the first phase would be with MSD, which typically takes six months. The second phase, the flood plain mitigation, is with FEMA, and then lastly, the Corps of Engineers will handle elimination of the creeks that run through the property.
Mr. Hessel asked the Petitioner if any sign dimensions were available at this point? Mr. Otto stated that there would be no variance from the existing Sign Ordinance. Mr. Hessel asked if Walmart would become the owner of the existing billboard? Mr. Otto stated that the billboard is on a lease and at this point in time they are unsure of their ability to terminate it. Mr. Hessel stated that he would prefer that the billboard be removed.
Mr. Hessel asked Mr. Lum if he could provide an explanation of paragraph 19 in the Staff Report? Mr. Lum stated that the building Code regarding landscaping requires plants all around the building. However in this case it would be impossible to do so since there is paving all around the building. So the landscape architect has proposed to use the same number of plantings required by Code and place them throughout the site.
Mr. Hessel asked the Petitioner how they had addressed the following concern,
"Staff is concerned that traffic attempting to make a left onto 3401 Lindbergh will be prohibited from turning due to a westbound cue at the proposed traffic signal leading to backups on the eastbound lanes"?
Mr. Otto stated that the strip center currently has access immediately east of Sunswept and the problem is that it is too immediate. He stated that one of the alternatives which will be discussed with owner of the strip center is to leave the access in place as a right-in/right-out, and provide an alternative means connecting across the auto repair property and Sunswept. The other alternative is to take the existing entrance to the strip center and move it further east.
Mr. Hessel asked Mr. Lum if these plans required approval by this Commission or if they could be approved administratively? Mr. Lum stated that it could be either/or. Mr. Otto stated that they had met with MoDot, who has jurisdiction over where the curb cut goes, on two occasions and they had no problem with either solution.
Mr. Hessel voiced a concern regarding the masonry variance, noting that several smaller businesses had been denied for this very reason. Therefore in his opinion, it would be unfair to grant an exemption for such a large area. Mr. Otto informed Commissioner Hessel that no variance was being sought for any building associated with the outlot essentially because it will be seen by the public on a regular basis. However in this case the service area of the building will only be visible to the persons providing service in that area. He also noted that a similar exception was granted for the Shoppes at Cross Keys where they used split-faced block in the rear.
Mr. Hessel asked Mr. Lum if he could provide an explanation of the following language contained in Staff's Report,
"Staff informs the Commission that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to consider the B-5 rezoning only for recommendations to City Council regarding this retail center"?
Mr. Lum stated that it was simply a way of saying that the only thing to be considered by this Commission is the B-5 Zoning.
Mr. Hessel questioned whether the projection of 450 days for construction was common? Mr. Lum stated that the standard is typically 365 days, so it is not uncommon to allow a little bit more time. Mr. Otto added that it takes approximately one year to build a Walmart Store.
Daniel Call noted that Drawing L-1 depicts a second outlot and questioned whether this had been in error? Mr. Otto stated that Drawing L-1 was an overlay by the landscape architect which apparently had not been corrected. He stated that the outlot was removed on the site plan in order to address the City's parking requirements.
Mr. Call noted that the contours go from 5.11 to 5.8, sloping towards the southwest corner of Outlot 1. He then questioned whether there was an outlet preventing water from being trapped in the corner? Mr. Otto stated that his belief is that the grade flows down to a field drain that will collect all the water until the outlot is developed. Once the lot is developed and the parking lot installed, the parking lot drains will tie into the manhole.
Mr. Call asked the Petitioner to provide a description of the topography on the south side of the site? Mr. Otto stated that the topo lines are a result of the Walmart site being substantially lower than the residential located behind. Therefore anything on the slope will run down to the parking lot as opposed to running over to an adjacent property owner.
Jim Ross asked Mr. Lum if the Commission had any jurisdiction over the positioning of the curb cuts for 3401 Lindbergh? Mr. Hessel responded by stating that the Commission could not change the entrance to somebody else's property. Therefore it would only become problematic if Walmart was unable to reach an agreement with the property owner of if there was no available alternative.
Jane Boyle concurred with Commissioner Hessel's concern regarding the variance to the Masonry Ordinance.
Ms. Boyle stated that she also had some real concerns about the relationship with the residential area located to the south of the site. She stated that if she had her druthers she would forget the outlot and move the twenty-four hour Walmart because of its close proximity to residential property. Mr. Otto stated that in addition to the fence and grade differential there will be heavy landscaping in the area along the top of the hill.
Ms. Boyle stated that another concern is with the parking located immediately to the north of the residents on Barcelona. Mr. Otto stated that residents would be looking down into the parking lot because of the significant change in grade. Ms. Boyle stated that she was speaking specifically about the noise associated with a twenty-four hour facility.
Ms. Boyle then asked the Petitioner if he was aware that the number of parking spaces rendered no room for the display of flowers in the spring? Mr. Otto stated that the only outdoor sales area would be the garden center which is enclosed by a fence.
Ms. Boyle stated that in her opinion, the traffic flow for the Halls Ferry Inn could potentially put the entire center out of business. Mr. Otto informed Commissioner Boyle that the Traffic Study revealed that the addition of Walmart did nothing to degrade the level of service below their current levels at any of the interchanges that were studied.
Shawn White, author of the Traffic Study appeared before the Commission and stated that the study indicates that the increase in traffic volume during peak hours is approximately 550 to 700 additional trips. Therefore the development needs the signal to get patrons in and out of the property. With respect to 3401 Lindbergh the study recommends an alternative access in order to achieve acceptable access to the property.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner for the height of the retaining wall located on the south side of the property? Mr. Otto stated that it was about 18 feet. Mr. Weller then asked if there would also be a retaining wall along the rear of the property? Mr. Otto stated that the wall along the rear was 19 feet. Mr. Weller noted that there are five, 39 feet light standards within this area which is simply out of the question since they project 15 feet above the top of the wall. Mr. Otto stated that the side of the lights facing residential property will have shielding.
Mr. Weller agreed that deliveries and trash removal can be a real problem for residents since the City permits these activities to start at 6 a.m.
Mr. Weller asked if the ponds were natural or manmade? Mr. Lum stated that they were storm water manmade ponds for the Lowes development. Mr. Weller questioned whether the ponds would now be on the Walmart site? Mr. Otto stated that the Walmart property line would be east of the retention ponds. Mr. Weller questioned whether the total number of parking spaces included the cart corrals? Mr. Otto stated that the cart corrals would be in addition to the total number.
Mr. Weller concurred with the comments of Commissioners Boyle and Hessel regarding compliance with the Masonry Ordinance. He then stated that in his opinion the light standards should be in compliance with the 25 foot requirement, and that based on the business that Walmart generates the Commission's concerns regarding the traffic load appear to be valid.
Mr. Otto stated that it was his impression that the light standards were in compliance with the Ordinance. However if they are not he would take a look at lowering them to 25 feet.
Lee Baranowski stated that while he would concur with most of the concerns addressed earlier, he is genuinely troubled about the impact this development might have on residential property. Based on the distance, he stated that it is his belief that residents sitting in their backyards will be able to see over the fence. Mr. Baranowski suggested that the construction of a berm would provide additional elevation.
Jim Hessel asked the Petitioner if the residents would be able to see the top of the Walmart building if the privacy fence and landscaping were not installed? Mr. Otto stated that based on his belief they would be.
Mr. Hessel asked Mr. Lum if the landscaping and fence would be considered as screening for mechanical equipment located on top of the building? Mr. Lum stated that while the Ordinance states that mechanical equipment should be screened from rights-of-way or residentially zoned properties, it does not state how the screening is to be established. However a buffer screen can either be accomplished by a 6 foot fence or a 15 foot landscaped buffer yard, and in this case the developer has proposed both. Mr. Lum then noted that several adjustments were needed since some of the landscaping is shown at the middle of the hill rather than at the top. He then concluded by stating that additional screening would be deemed necessary if you can stand on any portion of a residential property and view the rooftop units.
Mr. Otto stated that screening for the rooftop equipment will be provided to the extent that it is needed.
Paul Stock asked the Petitioner if any type of security would be associated with the pharmacy drive-through? Ms. Kerhatby stated that the pharmacy window is a special unit designed with safety glass. Although the window itself is not big enough for a normal person to get through, there would be cameras mounted in the area. Mr. Stock asked if the pharmacy would be open twenty-four hours? Ms. Kerhatby stated that it would depend upon the pharmacy laws within the State.
Mr. Stock asked the Petitioner if poured concrete would be used for the retaining wall? Mr. Otto stated that a versa-lock system would be utilized. Mr. Stock asked what type of footing would be required? Mr. Otto stated that a wall that size requires a substantial key-way (phonetic) at the bottom, and as it is brought up is supported by a geo-grid that serves as your structural support. Mr. Stock asked how close the wall would be to the creek? Mr. Otto stated that while it is not in the floodway, it would be in the flood plain. Mr. Stock informed the Petitioner that there was a notation on the topographical survey which specifically states that there could be radioactive contamination.
Jane Boyle asked the Petitioner if the existing chain-link fences would be replaced with the vinyl fence? Mr. Otto stated that it was not their intent to replace any fencing, simply to install the vinyl fence adjacent to the existing fence. Ms. Boyle stated that she did not believe that Walmart could plant enough trees to eliminate the noise that is going to be generated by such an operation.
Phil Lum stated that the City Engineer had studied the traffic study and questioned whether there would be a greater delay in westbound traffic on Highway 67 because of signalization, rather than the traffic itself? Ms. White stated that his reference was to the green band widths, which is the desire to go through one signal and hopefully hit the next signal on green, et cetera. She stated that they had looked at a progression analysis for when to introduce another signal on Lindbergh and the impact it would have on the current green bands. Ms. White stated that the one thing to note is that they will be adding a signal at the very end of an existing system that runs from (270), all the way up to the signal at Flower Valley Shopping Center. So the existing signals in that system operate exactly the same, with exactly the same band widths. The Petitioner will also be recommending that the new signal be interconnected into the existing system. And the table on page 30 of the Study shows that for the eastbound direction the green band width continues to be roughly the same. But for the westbound direction there is about a 15 second decline in the band width, although that will only be experienced between Flower Valley and Sunswept. Ms. White stated that the controlling intersection is New Halls Ferry, so there is not a large amount of green time on Lindbergh to open up a wider green band.
Mr. Lum stated that it was his understanding that there would be a change to the westbound traffic of about 40 seconds rather than 20 or 25 seconds? Ms. White stated that the delay would only be for vehicles entering the signal on green at Sunswept and going all the way through. She then informed all parties that MoDot had also addressed this issue and would be providing additional reviews.
Dick Weller asked the Petitioner if the signals were configured based on the speed limit? Ms. White stated that they were. Mr. Weller asked if the green bands were configured to work during off-peak hours? Ms. White stated that that was correct.
Lee Baranowski asked the Petitioner how someone driving east on Lindbergh would make a left turn into the Halls Ferry Inn? Ms. White stated that currently they would make a left turn by getting into the center left turn lane. With the proposed renovations and the addition of a signal, there is a need to have a dedicated left turn lane into the new driveway.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner?
Resident Nancy Reily, of 1890 Curtis Court appeared before the Commission and expressed concerns regarding the traffic load, addition of a new traffic signal and its impact on neighboring businesses, the impact on residential property and the newly stated potential for radioactive contamination. Ms. Reily stated that her belief is that this project could be detrimental to the City and as a result required further discussions.
Resident Frances Hemingway, of 805 Pebble Lane appeared before the Commission and stated that as a former employee of Schnucks she had firsthand knowledge of the congestion and problems associated with the intersection at Halls Ferry and Lindbergh. Ms. Hemingway stated that in her opinion the addition of another traffic signal would provide no benefit.
Mr. Otto informed the Commission that he understood their concerns regarding the residential neighbors, and while he believes that the change in grade will be an added benefit the Petitioner is willing to do whatever makes sense in terms of screening.
Based on the comments that were heard this evening Jim Ross asked the Petitioner whether he felt there was a need to make any modifications to the plan? Mr. Otto stated that he would welcome the opportunity to respond to these comments, and therefore would request that this evening's vote be deferred.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments to the Petitioner? Being no further questions or comments, Mr. Ross reiterated the concerns and made a motion to continue this Petition until the next meeting scheduled for October 3rd. The motion was seconded by Dick Weller. All parties concur and the motion carried.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Future Meetings:
The next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will be held on October 3, 2011.
The next City Council Representative for the meeting held on October 10, 2011, will be Paul Stock.
Jim Ross asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Mr. Ross made a motion to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Daniel Call. All parties concur and the meeting is adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
