MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 2, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Announcements/Comments Page 2
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Request to Ratify Minor Changes
To Site Development Plans that
Was Conditionally Approved by the
Building Commissioner for the
Property Located at 840 North
Highway 67, White Castle Under
Ordinance No. 7423 Page 2-4
Review and Make Recommendations
To City Council to Amend the
Sign Ordinance to Include
Regulations on Digital Signs Page 4-8
Future Meetings Page 8
Wright Tree Trimming Company Page 8
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, April 16, 2012 at 7:00 p.m., with Jane Boyle presiding.
On roll call the following members were present: Jane Boyle, Paul Stock, Jim Hessel, Daniel Call, Steve Olds, Dick Weller 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
Phil Lum announced that Coy Clasby (phonetic), an Honor Student from McCluer North High School was in attendance at tonight's meeting. Coy has been working in the Community Learning Program and shadowing Phil for an entire semester.
Commissioner Boyle stated that the next order of business would be approval of the minutes for the April 2, 2012 meeting. Hearing no amendments Jane Boyle stated that the minutes would be approved as written.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
Item 2 Request to Ratify Minor Changes
PZ041612-2 to Site Development Plans that
Were Conditionally Approved by the
Building Commissioner for the Property
Located at 840 North Highway 67,
White Castle, Under Ordinance No. 7423
Phil Lum stated that the Code provides the Building Commissioner with the authority to conditionally approve minor modifications as long as they are brought before Planning and Zoning for ratification. He informed the Commission that staff had reviewed this request with two things in mind; (1) did the modifications meet the spirit of the original B-5 and (2) was there anything in the request that would lead them to believe that this was not a minor change. As a result, they determined that this was a minor change and conditional approval was granted.
Mr. Lum stated that the modifications included the addition of one menu board, two lanes and the elimination of five parking spaces. (52 parking spaces were required in the original B-5 and 64 were provided.)
Along with the proposed drawings the Commission was provided with a drawing of the proposed menu board.
Michael Veloft (phonetic), Civil Design Engineer for the White Castle project appeared before the Commission to answer any questions.
Jane Boyle asked Mr. Lum if the project would move forward after this Commission's approval? Mr. Lum stated that although building permits and the appropriate submissions must be provided to Public Works, upon approval the request would be deemed minor and therefore no public hearing would be required.
Jim Hessel asked Mr. Lum for the current width of the bailout lane? Mr. Lum stated that he could not tell from the drawing, although it did look larger than 12 feet.
Dick Weller asked if the new lanes would be re-striped to direct the flow of traffic? Mr. Veloft stated that the existing menu board would be moved so that both menu boards are located at the rear which should eliminate any confusion, although the striping will be slightly modified.
Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum if the Fire Department had a problem with the reduction of the bailout lane? Mr. Lum stated that he did not think so because the current requirement for a fire lane is 18 feet, so neither one would have been in compliance. Mr. Baranowski asked Mr. Lum if the drawings as submitted were satisfactory? Mr. Lum stated that these drawings were simply provided to present the minor change, however in addition to these detailed, full engineering drawings with the proper seals will be required for the permit.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jane Boyle made a motion to ratify the minor change to the Site Development Plan that was conditionally approved by the Building Commissioner for the property located at 840 North Highway 67, White Castle, under Ordinance No. 7423. Seconded by Paul Stock. On roll call the Commission voted: Boyle yes, Call yes, Hessel yes, Stock yes, Olds yes, Weller yes and Baranowski yes. Motion carried.
Item 1 Review and Make Recommendations
PZ041612-1 to City Council to Amend the Sign
Ordinance to Include Regulations on
Digital Signs.
Phil Lum stated that this item is returning to Planning and Zoning after further study and on the suggestion of the City Attorney, who assisted in drafting Digital Sign Ordinance for Kirkwood.
Mr. Lum stated that although the City has asked non-profits to cooperate with the City's regulations, to date, many of the non-profit organizations located in residential districts R-1 through R-6 have digital signs that are unregulated or that do not fall within the City's purview to regulate.
Jane Boyle noted that there is a huge non-profit digital sign located at Waterford and Parker that does not match any of this Commission's suggested regulations. And as a result, the neighbors are very unhappy about the sign.
Paul Stock stated that he had discovered six signs that were scrolling, even though the Commission had specifically recommended that scrolling be prohibited.
Phil Lum stated that the problem with enforcing electronics is that they can easily be changed to a non-compliant mode and the City has no legitimate electronic sign Ordinance. But once the City adopts an official regulation, enforcement will be retroactive and more consistent for both for-profit and non-for-profit organizations.
As a starting point, Mr. Lum stated that the Commission is being asked to review the following documents contained within their packet:
1. Staff's Report
2. Staff's list of existing digital signs
3. Florissant Suggestions; (rewritten by a sign company with editorial comments by Mr. Lum)
4. Memos regarding Kirkwood's Ordinance
5. St. Charles Electronic Billboard Ordinance
6. Catalog of sign codes
7. Current recommendations utilized by this Commission
Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum why the residential guidelines were less restrictive than commercial? Mr. Lum stated that unfortunately their survey had revealed that most signs ranged from 4 to 8 seconds and did not adhere to the 10 second requirement.
Commissioners Boyle and Baranowski stated that in their opinion residential signs should probably be restricted to more than 10 seconds.
Ms. Boyle asked Mr. Lum if all of the City's existing signs had the technology needed to provide automatic dimming? Mr. Lum stated that there are varying levels of technology and therefore the Commission may have to consider an alternative guideline for signs that do not have the necessary technology to comply with the Ordinance.
Daniel Call stated that in order to eliminate confusion for sign owners and staff, none of the existing signs should be grandfathered in.
Phil Lum stated that he would have no problem with enforcing an Ordinance that required all sign owners to be compliant.
He stated that another aspect that has not been touched on is the restricted distance between an electronic sign located inside the building near a window which some communities have adopted. Mr. Lum stated that while the Ordinance does state that if you paint something in your window it is a sign, staff could possibly stretch it to say that if there is a reader board near your window the window then becomes a sign, but since there is a proliferation of these reader boards that do not currently count as signs it would be better if the issue was addressed within the Ordinance.
Jane Boyle stated that she believes she would have an issue with a sign company drafting the City's Ordinance.
Phil Lum stated that there are two realities. One is that this is a huge wave coming, so the City can build as much protection against that wave as possible. But it is a technology that business owners will be asking for a regulation on.
Secondly, sign companies now have staff specifically assigned to assist code officials with the drafting of Ordinances. He stated that one of the local sign companies will even provide specific regulations to the manufacturer who then programs signs sold in the City of Florissant, for example, to operate in a manner that would be in compliance with their regulations.
Commissioners Stock, Boyle and Weller all expressed a concern about Council's view on the proposed digital sign Ordinance, and whether the Commission would be wasting its time discussing and making recommendations that would not be supported by the majority? Mr. Lum stated that while the day care issue was unfortunate, they should not assume that the motivation of Council was to ignore this Commission, because they have been very faithful in providing support on numerous occasions. He further explained that what they saw as a flaw in the information brought before them was that it did not involve existing business owners who were a valued commodity to some of the members. And as a result, only a very narrow portion of the problem was addressed.
Mr. Lum stated that Planning and Zoning is more involved in regulations and restrictions that protect and preserve the character of the City of Florissant and that is what this Commission, as the recommending body, brings to Council. He stated that his impression is that Council does see a need for this type of a regulation because it is becoming more and more in demand. And if the City continues to proceed the way that it is going there will be a longer list of things that are not in compliance with no means of enforcement.
Jane Boyle asked Mr. Lum if he could provide some clarification on the Kirkwood memorandums dated July 26th and June 22nd? Mr. Lum stated that the June 22nd document was their attorney's in-house educational memo. Ms. Boyle then questioned the writing on the document? Mr. Lum stated that that the writing was his notes. Ms. Boyle questioned whether Kirkwood had used these as working documents to draft their ordinance? Mr. Lum stated that that was his belief, although he had not seen the actual ordinance.
Mr. Lum advised the Commission that he would provide them with a copy of the Ordinance, a more detailed report of the City's current inventory, and any other communities that the Commission believed might be helpful.
Jim Hessel suggested that the Commission receive information on the City of Hazelwood and that the revised inventory report include information on whether the signs had the capability to dim automatically.
Phil Lum asked the Commission if it would be their preference to garner input from business owners on the proposed sign Ordinance?
Steve Olds stated that while he agreed with Commissioner Hessel's suggestion, to go any further might be opening a whole new can of worms.
Phil Lum stated that wherever possible the cost of each sign would be included within the report.
Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum if the Commission's deliberations would only encompass digital signs? Mr. Lum stated that although the entire sign Ordinance had been included, his suggestion is that discussions be focused on the digital signage.
The Commission agreed that only recommendations pertaining to digital signs would be sent forward to Council.
Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum if there was some way to ascertain whether Council would be receptive to their recommendations? Mr. Lum informed Commissioner Baranowski that Council received minutes of every Planning and Zoning meeting.
Jim Hessel stated that unlike day cares which was a local issue, digital signs are broad and something that all cities are tackling. So his hope is that this will be on their radar and that they have an understanding of its importance.
Lee Baranowski stated that a good town to review for signage is Overland Park, Kansas, where only building signs are permitted.
The Commission suggested that ordinances be provided from the cities of Manchester, Baldwin, Creve Coeur, Bridgeton and Maryland Heights.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jane Boyle made a motion to continue this item to the May 7th meeting. Seconded by Paul Stock. All parties concur and the motion carried.
Item 3 Future Meetings
The next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting will be held on Monday, May 7, 2012.
The next City Council Representative for the meeting held on April 23, 2012, will be Jane Boyle.
Ms. Boyle asked Mr. Lum if he would revise the City Council list to include Commissioner Olds.
Item 4 Wright Tree Trimming Company
Jane Boyle informed Commissioner Weller that she had attended a recent Ward meeting where several residents had also expressed concerns about the trucks parked at Bangert Park. She stated that they had been advised that the trucks would be removed by the first of May.
Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jane Boyle made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Daniel Call and all parties concur. The meeting is adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
