Planning and Zoning Commission Unofficial Planning & Zoning Minutes. Roll Call/Minutes Page 2. Hertz Car Rental Page 3-4. Signarama Page 4-6

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Planning and Zoning Commission Unofficial Planning & Zoning Minutes. Roll Call/Minutes Page 2. Hertz Car Rental Page 3-4. Signarama Page 4-6"

Matilda Strickland
5 years ago
Views:

1 CITY OF FLORISSANT 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Planning and Zoning Commission Unofficial Planning & Zoning Minutes

1 1 CITY OF FLORISSANT Planning and Zoning Commission Unofficial Planning & Zoning Minutes April 21, 2014 Table of Contents Page Number Roll Call/Minutes Page 2 Hertz Car Rental Page N. Lindbergh Signarama Page N. Lindbergh Monopole Telecommunication Tower Page New Halls Ferry New Building - Dollar Tree Page New Halls Ferry

2 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 4/21/2014 Page CITY OF FLORISSANT Planning and Zoning Commission Unofficial Planning & Zoning Minutes April 21, 2014 The Planning and Zoning Commission met at Florissant City Hall, 955 rue St. Francois on Monday, April 21, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. with Jane Boyle presiding. Roll Call On Roll Call the following members were present: Paul Stock, Allen Minks, Jane Boyle, Steven Olds, Richard Weller and Lee Baranowski. Also present was Phil Lum Building Commissioner and Cynthia Treiber Public Works Clerk. A quorum being present the Chair declared that the Planning and Zoning Commission was in session for the transaction of business. Approval of Minutes Jane Boyle stated that the next order of business was approval of the minutes from the 4/7/2014 meeting. With no amendments, Jane Boyle moved to approve the Meeting Minutes of 4/7/2014 as distributed.

3 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 4/21/2014 Page Old Business Item N. Lindbergh PZ Hertz RECOMMENDED APPROVAL Ward 3 Request recommended approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for a used car leasing business in a B-3 Zoning District. The chair stated item Number one #PZ , located at 8115 N. Lindbergh in ward 3, Hertz represented by Donny Pruitt. Donny Pruitt, Area Manager of Hertz appeared before the Commission and stated that they were relocating their business from their current location of 8201 N. Lindbergh to this new location. Mr. Pruitt stated that the last time they appeared before the Commission they did not have professional drawings in which they have now provided to the Commission indicating the parking. Mr. Pruitt stated that the main concern was to identify the handicap parking. Mr. Pruitt stated that there were three in the front to be used for the customers and the handicap spaces with six additional spaces on the side. Ms. Boyle questioned where the vehicles for lease would be parked. Mr. Pruitt stated that the spaces on the side would be used for customers and our vehicles in which ideally there would only be two or three of our vehicles on the lot at one time. Mr. Baranowski questioned if a car leasing business was a permitted use in a B- 3? Mr. Lum stated no, that a Special Use permit would be required. Mr. Baranowski questioned if the parking along the north area was considered a thorough fare. Mr. Lum stated no, it was an abandoned street, however had the ascetics of a street but was not. Mr. Baranowski stated it was his understanding that you could not have a parking lot that backed up into a street. Mr. Lum stated that in his staff report he had noted that if parking was going to be used in that area there would be a need for some kind of curb cut, however no parking was proposed in that area. Mr. Olds questioned that according to the property line if someone parked in one of the parking spaces they would have to go over the property line into the adjoining

4 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 4/21/2014 Page property to get out. Mr. Lum stated yes, however the proposal was for both pieces of property. Mr. Stock stated he wanted to reiterate that all their waste would be stored inside. Mr. Pruitt stated yes. Ms. Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments. Being none Ms. Boyle made a motion to recommend approval of a Special Use Permit for a Car Leasing establishment in a B-3 Zoning District as depicted by the attached plans plans dated 4/14/2014, subject to the regulations in a B-3 Zoning District Seconded by Mr. Stock and on the roll call the Commission voted: Stock yes, Minks Yes, Boyle yes, Olds yes, Weller Yes and Baranowski yes. Vote 6 to 0; Motion Carries Ms. Boyle encouraged the petitioner to contact his Council person in that ward before appearing in front of Council. Item N. Lindbergh PZ Signarama RECOMMENDED APPROVAL Ward 3 Request recommended approval of a Special Use Permit to allow for a sign shop in a B-3 Zoning District. The chair stated item Number two, #PZ located at 8215 N. Lindbergh in ward 3, Signarama represented by Ron Nash. Mr. Nash appeared before the Commission stating that he was requesting a Special Use Permit to allow for his Business. Mr. Nash stated there would be two full employees and on part time with typically one employee out in the field, hours of operation were Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. till 5:00 p.m. Mr. Nash stated that fifty percent of their business were other business owners and that most of their customers do not come to our office, typically they go to their customers, therefore their customers would have minimal effect on the parking. Mr. Nash stated that the signs were designed and fabricated by computers. The computers were used to design and cut out vinyl or plastic which most signs that come into their office were already precut and drilled; therefore there would be no cutting at their shop. Mr. Nash stated that the sound level of the computer machines were

5 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 4/21/2014 Page approximately the level of a normal conversation. Mr. Nash stated the only chemical that they used was Windex. Mr. Nash stated the fabrication for their signs were of a solid material and very seldom they would do wood signs, instead they use plastic and aluminum with very little materials stored at their shop. Mr. Nash stated the frame work was of of steel tubing and generally comes in 48 by 98 inch tubing which was ordered at the time of use and very seldom stored at their shop. Mr. Minks asked what the maximum size of a sign was. Mr. Nash stated that typically the largest sign they made was 28 by 96. Mr. Minks asked how the material was delivered. Mr. Nash stated that they shared a truck with another Signarama. Mr. Weller asked if they built the electrical boxes and would they put the electric in them? Mr. Nash stated no they ordered them and they would come with the electric in them. Mr. Baranowski asked if this was an existing building and for clarification of where the building was located? Mr. Lum stated that it was where the Hertz was coming from on the corner across from Schnucks. Mr. Baranawski asked how they were going to take deliveries from the front or the back. Mr. Nash stated that deliveries would be by truck or Fed Ex and thru the front. Mr. Weller asked if their business sign would be on the large bricks at an angle on the side. Mr. Nash stated that currently he had channel letters on the large business side. Ms. Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments. Being none Ms. Boyle made a motion to recommend approval of a Special Use Permit for a Sign Shop in a B-3 Zoning District as depicted by the attached drawings pages in the lease agreement attached, subject to the regulations in a B-3 Zoning District. Seconded by Mr. Minks and on the roll call the Commission voted; Stock yes, Minks Yes, Boyle yes, Olds yes, Weller Yes and Baranowski no. Vote 5 to 1; Motion Carries Ms. Boyle Ms. Boyle encouraged the petitioner to contact his Council person in that ward before appearing in front of Council. Mr. Lum stated that a sign shop was a Special Use however, the characteristics of sign shops have changed over the years, with everything being ordered and delivered to the site that they do very little at the shop itself. Sign shops used to be where they would construct the boxes, bake the enamel paint on them with possible use of

6 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 4/21/2014 Page chemicals Mr. Lum stated perhaps that was why sign shops were a Special Use Permit in a B-3 Zoning District. New Business Item New Halls Ferry PZ Monopole Telecommunication Tower RECOMMENDED APPROVAL with Stipulations Ward 9 Request recommended approval of a Special Use Permit to Allow for a 95 ft. monopole Telecommunication Tower in a R-2 Zoning District. The chair stated item Number three, #PZ located at New Halls Ferry, Monopole Telecommunication Tower in ward 9, represented by Network Real Estate LLC. Mr. Thompson appeared before the Commission representing Network Real Estate LLC, AT &T and Tower CO in which AT&T contracts with Tower CO to build a tower to serve the Community. Mr. Nash stated that there was a third party in which case was the land owner, the Fraternal Order Of Eagles # Mr. Nash stated this organization does a lot for the community and when looking for a location they focus somewhere that would service the Community. Mr. Nash stated that as cell phones continue to grow the density of the population drives the need for more towers. Mr. Nash stated that the more density an area was the more need for structures to support their needs. Mr. Nash stated that most everyone there was aware of how the use of cell phones and devices has increased and that most people rely on their cell phones instead of their home phones. Mr. Nash stated they proposed a tower straight up that was 95 feet with an array of antennas with no cables and that the tower was designed to allow for two additional carriers. Mr. Nash stated that AT&T s antennas would be down at about 75 feet with the tree lines at about 60 foot and any other users would go above 75 foot. Mr. Nash displayed and explained the location of the proposed tower which was at the edge of the City at New Halls Ferry

7 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 4/21/2014 Page and Greenway Chase that was back by cold water creek. Mr. Nash stated the Eagles location had two structures, one which was the old Church the second was an addition to that building with a pavilion on the out lot. Mr. Nash stated that there was a roadway alongside that was intended for a bridge that had been closed down with the flood plain following the tree line. Mr. Nash stated they were proposing to put a 30 x 50 foot rock looking embedding material around the tower as opposed to putting plants for screening purposes. Mr. Nash stated that the roadway would be used for maintenance trucks with a space to allow for a generator if needed. Mr. Nash stated they proposed to relocate the handicap spaces for the Eagles to meet the ADA requirements and allow for a walk way for easier access. Mr. Nash stated that they were about 50 foot from the property line with the proposed tower being about 18 feet. Mr. Nash stated that the proposed site was zoned R-2 as so was the neighboring properties being zoned residential also however, the proposed area had been used as agriculture for the last fifty years because of being in the flood plain. Mr. Nash stated the proposed fence came in six foot sections which made of a very hard material that would allow for ruggedness and stay good looking. Mr. Nash stated they were requesting a variance to the setback requirements, being 18 feet on the side and 50 feet on the rear yard because it was the only area that was not in the flood plain. Mr. Nash stated that he assumed with the setback requirements any proposed residential development would not be allowed due to the flood plain. Ms. Boyle asked how far the tower from the existing structure was. Mr. Nash stated that it was probably 50 feet. Ms. Boyle stated that she felt like this was a really tight space. Mr. Stock asked who would actually own the tower and would the tower be on their land with only one user, AT & T at this time? Mr. Nash stated, yes and that Tower CO. would own the tower. Mr. Stock stated that he wished he had a sketch with the foundation of the tower on it and how would the tower be anchored, Mr. Nash stated that those particular steps would be done by an Engineer and at this time they have not gone thru all the processes. Mr. Minks asked if the fence would go around the entire property. Mr. Nash stated, yes it would be 6 foot high with no bob wire at the top. Mr. Olds asked Mr. Lum if this fencing met the City s screening requirements. Mr. Lum stated that he had addressed that in his staff report stating that in lieu of landscaping a six

8 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 4/21/2014 Page foot fence would be allowed. Mr. Olds asked who owned the street. Mr. Lum stated that it was a City street that had been blocked off, originally they were going to replace the bridge, however they did not have the funds and therefore shut down the street. Ms. Boyle questioned if this property was ward 9, Mr. Lum stated that he thought it might be ward 4. Mr. Baranowski asked if the fence could be constructed higher to cover up the building. Mr. Nash stated yes that the wall comes in three foot high sections and they could go as high as even 12 feet, however the building was of stone so there was no need to go higher with the fence. Mr. Baranowski asked about the parking spaces that would be taken away from the Eagles? Mr. Nash stated that their proposal was, where the grassy area in between the pavilion and at the end the parking lot to add 2 more spaces with a total of 18. Mr. Baranowski asked why they could not make the drive way come straight in and then make a ninety degree turn to allow for more parking spaces. Mr. Nash stated that they were following the structure of the existing drive. Mr. DeClue, President of the Eagles stated that they were in favor of this development and that the parking met all their requirements. Mr. Weller questioned that if in the future would they envision putting up another tower, Mr. Nash stated no. Mr. Baranowski asked if the Commission could table this to the next meeting in order for the petitioner to come back with a site plan showing the parking. Mr. Lum stated that the Eagles had been there for a very long time as a legal nonconforming development, however once changes are made they would no longer be considered nonconforming. Mr. Lum stated that currently the required parking spaces were 28 and once the parking regulations were amended the required amount would be 20. Mr. Lum stated that the landscaping and parking could be considered and voted upon as a part of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Nash stated that they could re-arrange and possibly add 2 more spaces to come up with 20 parking spaces. Further discussion was held on the parking with Ms. Boyle stating that she was going to poll the Commission to request more drawings or go forward with the vote. Mr. Stock stated he had other issues and yes he would like to see drawings. Mr. Minks stated no, Mr. Olds stated he would not need to see additional drawings if the parking spaces were made part of motion. Mr. Weller agreed with Mr. Olds. Mr. Baranowski stated he would like to see additional drawings. Ms. Boyle stated that she would like to see additional drawings.

9 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 4/21/2014 Page Ms. Boyle stated that they were recommending approval but that the recommendation would have to include a drawing to go on to Council. Mr. Weller stated that he would like to move forward with the parking issue. Mr. Minks made a motion to move recommend approval providing that the designated number of parking spaces per City code were addressed. Seconded by Mr. Weller, on the roll call the Commission voted: Stock no, Minks Yes, Boyle yes, Olds yes, Weller Yes and Baranowski no. Vote 4 to 2; Motion Carries. Ms. Boyle asked the petitioner to confirm what ward this was in and to contact his Council person in that ward before appearing in front of Council. Item New Halls Ferry PZ New Building (Dollar Tree) RECOMMENDED APPROVAL with brick Ward 9 Request recommended to establish a B-5 ordinance to allow for a new retail sales building in a B-5 Zoning District. The chair stated item number four #PZ , New Halls Ferry a new building for Dollar Tree in ward 9, represented by Doering Engineering. Mark. Doering, Vice President of Doering Engineering appeared before the Commission proposing the construction of a new building. Mr. Doering stated that their proposal consisted of subdividing Lowes parcel as well as a boundary adjustment where part of the parking lot of the Auto Tire store was. Mr. Doering presented on the overhead where their proposed building was going to be and explained the details. Mr. Doering stated they would have a cross access agreement with Auto Tire with a smaller defined entrance off New Halls Ferry as well as entrance form Lowes parking lot. Mr. Doering stated that there was also an entrance from the back to allow for their delivery trucks to get in. Mr. Doering stated that there were 8 parking spaces showing with an additional 45 spaces. Mr. Doering stated that in the Southwest corner was green space with landscaping in the islands. Mr. Doering stated they had masonry trash enclosures, with the storm sewers running along the back. Mr. Doering stated they were proposing a 24 foot high pole sign with a 75 foot sign that was 10 foot deep and 7 1/2 foot wide. Mr. Doering stated the floor plan was a total of 9,997 sq. feet, divided by three sections,

10 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 4/21/2014 Page sales floor, stock room, offices and restroom. Doug Burn appeared before the Commission to explain the elevations. Mr. Burn distributed new plans and stated that the proposed material submitted on the drawings was a CMU block, painted to look very nice, however with the City requirements they were going to use to brick pro type to look like the surrounding buildings. Ms. Boyle questioned if the plans submitted did not show masonry how could they address that issue? Mr. Lum stated the Commission could indicate in the motion the material of the building to be masonry. Mr. Doering stated that the Commission could use the plans that they submitted tonight that showed the brick proto type. Mr. Stock asked about the 176 foot sign on the building? Mr. Lum stated that the wall sign could be included with the B-5. Nr. Burn stated that was their standard size sign. Mr. Minks had concerns with the parking spot that backed up towards New Halls Ferry and that if someone was pulling in at the same time someone was backing out could propose a problem. Mr. Doering stated that they also had that concern, however had to meet the City requirements for parking spaces. Mr. Lum stated that the parking meets the proposed City requirements and that the proposed new parking requirements were on the agenda for Council this Monday. Mr. Lum stated that as long as it passed the petitioner would meet the City requirements for parking spaces. Mr. Minks stated that under the proposed new parking only 40 spaces were required and that there were 44, therefore that space could be eliminated. Mr. Weller asked if the Auto Tire property line was on their property. Mr. Burn stated yes, and that they were doing a boundary adjustments to include that as their property. Mr. Baranowski questioned the set back of the pole sign only being 30 feet. Mr. Lum stated that sign could be approved at 30 foot, however the suggestion was to request the petitioner to relocate the sign to the 40 foot setback. Mr. Baranowski questioned if the Auto Tire parking spaces would be affected? Mr. Lum stated that currently the Auto Tire operates under a Special Use Permit with only 8 parking spaces and the boundary adjustment would have no effect on their parking spaces. Mr. Baranowski questioned how many handicap parking spaces, Mr. Doering stated two. Mr. Baranowski stated that he thought the sign on the building was too big. Mr. Doering stated that due to how far their building setbacks they would appreciate the Commissions consideration for the larger sign. Mr. Lum stated that the correct

11 Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes 4/21/2014 Page calculations for the wall sign was only 118 square feet and not 176. Mr. Weller stated he felt the pole sign should meet the 40 foot setback. Ms. Boyle stated they would make that a part of the motion where line 255 was that the pole sign would meet the 40 foot setback. Ms. Boyle stated that she would not read lines 33 thru 376 however the motion presented by staff begins on line 137 and that were what she was going to read. Ms. Boyle made a motion to recommend approval of a B-5 at New Halls Ferry for a Dollar Tree to allow for a new retail sales building in an existing B-5 Zoning District as depicted by the attached drawings that are all listed, and the motion completes on line 376 that states construction shall begin within 90 days of issuance of building permits and shall be developed in accordance with the development plan and completed within 18 months. Ms. Boyle stated that in order to address the Masonry, on line 297 to read Brick protype. Seconded by Mr. Olds, on the roll call the Commission voted: Stock yes, Minks Yes, Boyle yes, Olds yes, Weller Yes and Baranowski no. Vote 5 to 1; Motion Carries. Ms. Boyle recommended to the petitioner to contact act his Council person in that ward before appearing in front of Council. Mr. Weller stated that there was a flatbed truck on Mr. Yacs parking lot. Ms. Boyle stated that when she seen the pictures showing Cross Keys Auto that they had way too many cars than what was authorized. Ms. Boyle stated that GMT was parking cars out on the grass. Mr. Olds made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Stock. All parties concurred, meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Cynthia A. Treiber, Public Works Clerk

PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS October 15, :00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS October 15, 2012 7:00 P.M. Mr. Monnett: I will now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for October 15, 2012. ROLL CALL/DETERMINE