MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2013

Transcription

1 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 4, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Announcements/Comments Page 2 Under New Business 2375 North Highway 67 Panera Bread Company Page 2-5 Miscellaneous Business Review Screening & Fencing Regulations in the HB District Page 5-11 Digital Church Signs Page 11 Five Guys Restaurant Page 12 Collision Center Truck Page 12 Lindbergh Vacant Lot Page 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Florissant met at the Florissant City Hall Council Chambers on Monday, March 4, 2013 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, 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

2 Jane Boyle announced that Commissioner Olds had been excused from tonight s meeting. Ms. Boyle stated that the next order of business would be approval of the minutes for the February 4, 2013 meeting. Hearing no amendments Commissioner Boyle stated that the minutes would be approved as written. NEW BUSINESS: Item North Highway 67 PZ ` Panera Bread Company RECOMMENDED APPROVAL Ward 9 Request Recommended Approval to amend B-5 Ordinance No (as Amended by Ordinance No. 7322), to Allow for the Replacement of an existing Wall Sign in A B-5 Zoning District. The Chair stated Item Number One, Panera Bread Company located at 2375 North Highway 67; Request Recommended Approval to amend B-5 Ordinance No (as Amended by Ordinance No. 7322), to allow for the replacement of an existing wall sign in a B-5 Zoning District. John Krone of Warren Sign Company appeared before the Commission and stated that the sign in question sits on the east elevation. With the exception of a new green background panel the sign will be similar to the existing sign which exceeds 100 square feet and requires approval prior to it being replaced. Mr. Krone noted that the existing drive-through sign which is 154 square feet will be moved from the front elevation to the side, and that modifications would also be made to the existing building signs, all in compliance with the City s Code. Jane Boyle questioned whether the wall sign was on the east or west side of the building? Phil Lum stated that the sign would be located on the same side as Aldi s. Tony Desanza (phonetic), of Panera Bread appeared before the Commission and stated that the interior of the building had already been renovated and that these modifications were a result of the Company s new branding concept that will be implemented at all of their locations. Jim Hessel questioned whether the size of the sign was typical for all of Panera s locations? Mr. Krone stated that from what he has reviewed this is a standard size sign. Daniel Call stated that the drawing indicates that the sign would be approximately 13 feet tall and 80 feet wide. He then asked the Petitioner if the new sign was going to be within the current footprint of the existing sign? Mr. Krone stated that those dimensions represented the overall measurement of the wall itself, and that the footprint would basically be the same. Dick Weller noted that the existing striped fabric cover on the entryway had already been replaced and questioned whether all of the awnings would be replaced with the same fabric cover? Mr. Desanza informed Commissioner Weller that the covers on all of the awnings had already been replaced.

3 Lee Baranowski stated that in spite of the fact that it was previously approved, his opinion is that if this Commission recommends approval they would be setting a precedent for future businesses to request the same or even larger. Phil Lum stated that while Public Works may have erroneously stated that the original sign was under a Special Use Permit the sign is actually under a B-5 Ordinance. And the difference between obtaining a sign in a B-5 versus a B-3 is that the sign regulations that Commissioner Baranowski refers to are very specific for a wall sign. A wall sign is permitted up to 40 square feet in the B-3 District, but if it is between 40 and 100 square feet it needs approval by this Commission. And wall signs that exceed 100 square feet are simply not permitted. However in a B-5 District, Section of the Code states that s, No action shall be taken by the City Council with respect to the petition unless it has received a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The recommendation shall address general planning considerations, including consistency with good planning practice and compatibility with adjoining permitted development and uses. A recommendation of approval shall include recommended conditions to be included in the Ordinance authorizing the establishment of the B-5 Planned Commercial District. Such conditions shall include, but not be limited to the following: sign regulations. Therefore the sign regulations that were set out by the original Ordinance for Boston Market were in existence and transferred to the new owners of the building, Panera Bread Company. Panera then added the drive-through, which was actually passed by the original Ordinance for Boston Market, although it was never utilized. As a result of the change in ownership and amendments to the building City staff requested that the B-5 be amended rather than obtain a Special Use Permit which is not pertinent in this district. Mr. Lum stated that his belief is that in a B-5 Zoning District this body makes recommendations on the following conditions: permitted uses, performance standards, height limitation, minimum yard requirements, off-street parking and loading, sign regulations, minimum requirements for site development plans and time limitations for commencement and completion of construction, and that the same would apply for an amendment. So if this Commission amends the sign regulations for this customized design and Planned Commercial District then whatever you recommend to Council will become the sign regulation for this zoning district. Lee Baranowski stated that in his opinion you could take all of the signs off of St. Louis Bread Company and their business wouldn t change one bit. And if the City doesn t start putting its paws down on these oversized signs pretty soon Florissant will begin to look exactly like the Old Highway 66 with a tunnel of signs. Mr. Baranowski recommended that people drive down the streets of Overland Park where the only signs allowed are on the building and maybe then they could appreciate his rationale for not

4 voting in favor of their installation. 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 request for recommended approval to amend B-5 Ordinance No (as Amended by Ordinance No. 7322), to allow for the replacement of an existing wall sign for the property located at 2375 North Highway 67; Panera Bread Company, per the drawings dated 4/30/12. Seconded by Paul Stock and on roll call the Commission voted: Boyle yes, Stock yes, Hessel yes, Call yes, Weller yes and Baranowski no. VOTE: 5 TO 1; MOTION CARRIES. MISCELANEOUS BUSINESS Item 2 Review Screening & Fencing Regulations PZ In the HB District Jane Boyle stated that she was particularly drawn to this issue because it had come up in a Council meeting where citizens expressed concerns about a specific fence. So she was puzzled as to why this Commission was now being asked to review these regulations? Phil Lum displayed a drawing for the Commission that illustrated screening in the HB District. He stated that he had also heard that there was a complaint at the meeting regarding a fence on St. Francois; the senior apartment building, and upon review of the Ordinance he found wording that has seldom been used in the past generation that he believed needed to be revised. However it is this specific wording that makes the residents complaints ill-founded. Staff s Report provides two definitions. One of which is for the boundaries of the district which it describes as, 160 feet north of Rue St. Denis and 160 South of Washington, and largely represents the main corridor. But once you get down to St. Ferdinand it is no longer 160 feet because it has branched out over the years. And the 160 feet is also problematic because it splits some properties in half, including City Hall, the elementary school and others. By this description there is one property and two zoning districts, and County zoning who prepared the City s maps in the past, illustrates it on the map in exactly the same way. But the misinterpretation by the residents occurs on page 2 of the Ordinance at line 53, which states For a non-residential use. And what that means in the context of the zoning code is that if you have a use that is non-residential you are required to have a screen. The residents contend that the apartments represent a commercial building, but a multi-family use is considered to be a residential use. Mr. Lum stated that thereafter he reviewed the Ordinance with the City Attorney and informed the residents of the wording within the Code. He further explained that the applicant for the fence in question had attempted to do everything right; applying for a Building Permit and obtaining approval of the Landmark and Historic District Commission. However he had not completed the final inspection which would have rendered the portion of the fence nailed to the tree as unacceptable. The other claim by the residents is that the fence is on someone s property.

5 Although the Building Code states that a sketch can be used to apply for a fence permit, in this case the applicant submitted a survey. The survey indicated that the existing fence began 6 inches off of his property at 330. By the time it got midway through the property it crosses the line, continues on to the St. Francois property, and then at 306 is completely on St. Francois and not on the St. Louis property at all. But even in the face of that survey Mr. Lum stated that the residents complained because the fence no longer contained the dogs located at 306 and 330. However no fence erected by your neighbor is obligated to contain its neighboring pets. Mr. Lum noted that the applicant had not applied for a screen, which would have to be 6 feet tall, and that the fence submitted in the permit was 4 feet tall. Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum if a fence could be as high as 6 feet? Mr. Lum stated that it could, although it could not exceed 6 feet. Daniel Call asked how long the existing off of property portion of the fence had been in place? Mr. Lum stated that its existence is actually unknown. Although the belief is that the fence may have originated with the Laramie Meat Market 50 years ago. Mr. Call stated that based on his understanding if that has been the established line for a period of time and it was never contested it becomes a part of the property. Mr. Lum stated that now it becomes a civil matter. Mr. Lum stated that the City Attorney had advised him that whenever there is a non-residential use where a side or rear line coincides with a side or rear line of a parcel in a residential district, there shall be provided along such line a closed fence, 6 feet in height, and a landscaped yard of at least 6 feet in width. Where the rear or side wall of any non-residential structure or paved area lies across the street from the front yard or side yard of a residential structure located in the residential district, a landscaped yard of at least 20 feet in depth, and a closed fence 6 feet in height shall be provided. Although he is not sure if this was the intent of the original Ordinance, based on the City Attorney s interpretation City Hall; a non-residential use, would be in violation since its back is exposed to residential property. Daniel Call stated because of the way the Historic District was originally designed there is no way you could put in a 6 or 20 foot buffer. Jane Boyle noted that the fence at the bank was actually falling down. Mr. Lum stated that there were several fences behind the bank. Ms. Boyle questioned whether the fence had been erected by residents? Mr. Lum stated that his belief is that all of the fences had been erected by residents. And if we were to invoke this ordinance a 20 foot landscape buffer would be well into the bank s drive-through and exit drive, even before erecting the 6 foot fence. Recognizing the impact of this Ordinance Mr. Lum stated that the City Attorney suggested that he take this matter before the Landmark and Historic District Commission and ultimately this Commission to decide whether or not any recommendations should be made. The Landmark Commission met, reviewed the Sign Ordinance and made one recommendation; that the landscape buffer yard posed too many conflicts and therefore should not be required. Daniel Call said that personally he liked Landmark s recommendation. Phil Lum advised the Commission that the black marks on the map represents

6 existing screens, which consists of approximately six. Daniel Call noted that the map did not appear to provide a true representation of whether a 6 or 20 foot buffer could be utilized. Paul Stock suggested that the Commission s recommendation also specify the type of material that should be used. Daniel Call stated that since no recommendation pertaining to the type of material had been made by the Landmark Commission he would not feel comfortable with this Commission making such a recommendation. Phil Lum informed Commissioner Stock that fences within the Historic Business District have to be wood or decorative wrought iron, although there is a vinyl screen at the Robin s Building. Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum if it would be the responsibility of the business to install or fix the screens and fences? Mr. Lum stated that it would be. Mr. Baranowski asked Mr. Lum when and how the City was going to enforce this Ordinance? Mr. Lum stated that that s the point; where has the requirement or the enforcement been all this time? He stated that when the City cited the owner of the property at 309 St. Francois he immediately responded by making an application for a permit to replace the fence. So while his assumption is that the trigger mechanism would be a permit that is pulled for the site or as in this case, a complaint, he would discuss this further with the City Attorney tomorrow. Mr. Baranowski asked what would be wrong with installing a vinyl fence? Mr. Lum stated that it would all depend on the grade that is used. Daniel Call stated that he had seen some vinyl fences in his neighborhood that looked very nice, so as long as you re responsible and maintain the fence what difference does it make whether it s vinyl or wood? Phil Lum stated that the Landmark Commission does get to express their opinion on the issue of material, and although their approval was not required for the fence in question since it was not an historic property, the applicant had sought and received their approval. Daniel Call questioned whether the only issue was the fact that the fence is on two different pieces of property? Mr. Lum stated that he would estimate that maybe 20 feet of the fence is in dispute, but the residents are complaining that it is approximately 3 inches onto the property at 330 St. Louis. Mr. Call stated that if that s the case, then this is not an issue for the City or this Commission. Mr. Lum agreed that it really was a civil dispute and that all the City could do was recommend that they conduct their own survey to prove that the fence is encroaching on their property, that it needs to be removed, and then erect their own fence to contain their animals. Based on that explanation Jane Boyle again questioned Mr. Lum about what this Commission was being asked to do? Mr. Lum stated that the bottom line is that there may be a handful of screens required over the last generation that are now in poor condition. Daniel Call stated that based on the Ordinance there is another screen that has not been erected and that s the one for City Hall. Lee Baranowski asked Mr. Lum why the City had not cited these property owners and asked them to replace the screens that are in poor condition? Mr. Lum said that that is the very question that he has asked, but in his four years in this position nobody has

7 pulled a permit or did any work on the sites that would bring it to the City s attention. Mr. Baranowski questioned whether permits were even required to install a fence during that time frame? Mr. Lum stated that his belief is that they have always been required, although not everybody gets one. Dick Weller stated that another trigger might be when you try to sell the property, because one of his neighbors had been forced to remove a carport after he purchased the property. Phil Lum stated that it could be a trigger, but only if there is a dispute about the issue. Daniel Call stated that if these screens were installed 20 years ago someone could easily say that they applied for a permit, which is probably no longer available, and pass the ball to the City to resolve. Mr. Lum agreed that the City was only required to keep documentation for five years, and at the very most, seven years for drawings. Mr. Lum stated that the only recommendation he had received from the City Attorney was that whatever you do to amend this Ordinance that you not change the first words, for a non-residential use, because in both the HB District and the HR District you can have a residential use on either side of the line and it can change. There is no need for a 6 foot screen between two residential neighbors. Jane Boyle stated that she was not comfortable making any type of recommendation at this point. Phil Lum stated that his opinion is that if there is a change to the site plan then that would be the trigger mechanism for requiring a screen, if it is a non-residential use. Jane Boyle stated that another trigger mechanism should be if the fence is in really bad condition. Phil Lum stated that if the City receives a complaint about a property it will issue and invoke the Ordinance, which means that at least they will have to apply for a screen. Dick Weller stated that in his opinion the Landmark Commission had the right idea with respect to their recommendation. Daniel Call asked if the Landmark Commission had provided their comments in writing? Mr. Lum stated that it was in their minutes, which he could have ed to this Commission. Mr. Call stated that once the Commission receives a copy of the minutes from the Landmark meeting he would be more inclined to recommend that the Ordinance be changed by taking out the landscaped yard, at least 6 feet and a landscaped yard, at least 20 feet. However prior to making any recommendations he would like to know what City Hall is going to do about their condition. Jane Boyle suggested that Mr. Lum present the Commission s concerns to the City Attorney and get his perspective. Daniel Call stated that since this is a civil dispute and not an Ordinance violation his suggestion would be that the matter be tabled until such time as a violation does occur where the Commission can properly review the issue and provide a recommendation. Jane Boyle asked if there were any further questions or comments? Being no further questions or comments, Jim Hessel made a motion to continue this item to the next applicable agenda. Seconded by Paul Stock, all parties concur and the motion carries. Phil Lum stated that at this point he is not aware of any other items for the next

8 meeting, but that he would check tomorrow and send an informing the Commission of the correct status. Item 3 Digital Church Signs Lee Baranowski advised Mr. Lum that the digital sign in front of St. Mark s Church on Graham Road was flashing. Phil Lum stated that a church organization is exempt from the Sign Ordinance however they are not exempt from public safety, so he would send them a letter. Dick Weller advised Mr. Lum that the digital sign operated by the church next to St. Ferdinand Park was also in violation. Item 4 Five Guys Restaurant Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum if there was an update on the status of the outdoor dining area for the Five Guys Restaurant? Mr. Lum stated that the restaurant has been contacted and given 20 days to respond. Mr. Weller advised Mr. Lum that they now have two speakers mounted on the outside of the building and music can be heard from across the parking lot. Mr. Lum stated that since this is a commercial area he would have to check to see whether this falls under the Nuisance Code. Item 5 Collision Center Truck Dick Weller asked Mr. Lum if there were any updates on this matter? Mr. Lum stated that the last report he had received was that the Health Department was keeping an eye on the van to make sure that it moves. Mr. Weller stated that the number of trucks parked at shopping center lots is growing; Roma s, American Cleaners, The Locker Room, Little Caesar s and the Tan Company. Mr. Lum stated that he would bring the matter to the City Attorney s attention, but believes that it is probably going to take more stringent regulations to control the problem. A legitimate delivery vehicle with a sign is appropriate, but an abuse of that is hard to prove. Item 6 Lindbergh Vacant Lot Jim Hessel asked Mr. Lum if the City had any plans for new development on the lot located between St. Jean and the American Eagle Credit Union on Lindbergh? He stated that it used to be a wooded area and he had noticed recently that all of the trees had been knocked down. Mr. Lum stated that the Development Director had informed him that there was a house on the property which had been owned by an elderly gentleman, sold and then knocked down. And his thinking is that the Credit Union may be interested in buying it for parking or some other use.

9 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, all parties concurred and the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.