Minutes for the Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Date: March 31, 2011
Time: 6:30 P.M.

The regular meeting and public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on the above date and time in City Council Chambers, third floor of City Hall with the following members and personnel in attendance: XXXShelby Lawhon, Chair; Phil Young; Thomas Baird, IV; Gloria Roling; Jay McClelland; Jason Ray; Jim Hansen; Mike MacPherson, Principal Planner, Planning and Development; Ralph Rognstad, Director of Planning and Development; Thomas Rykowski, Assistant City Attorney; Diane Showerman, Administrative Assistant. ABSENT: King Coltrin, Matthew Edwards.


With the addition of Jay McClelland in attendance at the March 17, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the minutes of that meeting were approved unanimously.


Mr. MacPherson shared both applicants for two of the Consent items, Relinquish Easement 762 and Relinquish Easement 763 have requested their items to be tabled until April 14, 2011. 

Mr. MacPherson said a map for the Jordan Valley West Meadows clean-up was inadvertently submitted with the proposal for the Monroe Redevelopment Plan and has no relevance to the case and requested that it be disregarded. 

Mr. Rognstad referred to a hand-out given to the Commissioners for the Springfield Airport Master Plan, informing Commission a consultant is currently working with the airport with an update to the master plan.  More information regarding this plan can be found at www.flyspringfield.com; input is also encouraged.  A presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission will take place in the future.

Mr. Rognstad gave a brief overview about The Link, a bicycle/pedestrian route being created to go through the center of town from the North to the South, connecting the Greenways.  A “ribbon cutting” event is planned for May 15, 2011 at JQH Arena, with signage for the segment between JQH and Hammonds Field.  The Springfield Cardinals has a Spring Bike Night event that evening which will be coordinated with the “ribbon cutting.” 

(These consent cases will be approved by Commission unless a Commissioner or someone else wishes to speak to them.  If so, those cases will be moved to the appropriate place on the agenda and they may be spoken to, and voted on, at that time.)    

  1. Relinquish Easement 762                                   Empire Bank/Christian Church of Mid-America
    (3810 E. Sunshine)
  2. Relinquish Easement 763                                   Bass Pro Shops Outdoor World, LLC
    (500 W. Sunshine and 1935 S, Campbell)
    Mr. McClelland moved to table Relinquish Easements 762 and 763 to the April 14th, 2011 meeting.  Ray seconded the motion.  Motion carried as follows:  AYES:  Baird, Hansen, Lawhon, McClelland, Ray, Roling, and Young.  NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None.  ABSENT: Coltrin and Edwards.
  3. Relinquish Easement 764                                   Seminole Baptist Temple
    (1600 block W. Battlefield)
  4. Relinquish Easement 765                                   City of Springfield
    (3000 block E. Evans, S. side)

    Mr. Hansen motioned to approve Consent Items, Relinquish Easement 764 and 765.  Ms. Roling seconded the motion.  Motion carried as follows:  AYES:  Baird, Hansen, Lawhon, McClelland, Ray, Roling, and Young.  NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None.  ABSENT: Coltrin and Edwards.



5.     Z-05-2011                                         Drury University
       (1116 and 1126 N. Summit)

Mr. MacPherson introduced this proposal by Drury University.  They are requesting approval of this request in order to provide consistent zoning for the campus.  City Council adopted Drury’s Master Plan in April 2001 and this proposal is consistent with recommendations of Mid-Town Neighborhood Plan.  The Urban Conservation District #3 Overlay will be retained with this zoning request.  Staff recommends approval of this request.

Mr. Lawhon opened the Public Hearing.

Pete Radecki, Vice President of Operations for Drury University,noted he was available to answer any questions.  Mr. Lawhon offered the opportunity for citizens to speak regarding this proposal.  With no further appearances, Mr. Lawhon closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Young motioned to approve Z-05-2011.  Mr. McClelland seconded the motion.  Motion carried as follows:  AYES:  Baird, Hansen, Lawhon, McClelland, Ray, Roling, and Young.  NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None.  ABSENT: Coltrin and Edwards.


6.    Monroe Redeveloment Plan                                                       United Campus Housing, LLC
      (1141 E. Monroe)

Mr. MacPherson introduced this proposal by United Campus Housing, LLC requesting approval of a redevelopment plan pursuant to Chapter 99 of the Missouri Revised Statues (MRS) for a proposed redevelopment projected at the above mentioned address.  The purpose of the redevelopment plan is to remove blight and redevelop the area into a Mixed-Use Development in order for the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) to participate in the MRS tax abatement incentives.

Mr. MacPherson continued this particular property was blighted by the City in 1966 by Council Resolution 4513 due to a predominance of deteriorating conditions within the area  The applicant would like remove the blighted properties and redevelop a four-story, Mixed-Use, 122 bedroom student housing community. Space will also be available for the headquarters of the United Ministries and Higher Education.

Mr. MacPherson said the role of the Planning & Zoning Commission is to find whether or not the redevelopment plan is consistent of the comprehensive development plan of the City.  The role of the LCRA is to find whether blight exists in order to provide incentives under Chapter 99.  Staff submits that in the comprehensive plan, the growth management and land use plan encourages the development of Mixed-Use areas that are in close proximity to higher density residential neighborhoods.  Mr. MacPherson said the mix of mutually support of commercial and residential uses will help maintain a traditional urban character, promote alternative forms of transportation, and provide additional amenities which will enhance the surrounding neighborhood.  The proposed redevelopment area is located within the broad area included in the Center City Element Plan.  Mr. MacPherson continued the Center City Plan notes the area suffers from physical deterioration and economic obsolescence.  The redevelopment plan anticipates addressing those issues. 

Mr. MacPherson submitted this proposed redevelopment for the Madison and Kimbrough Redevelopment Area is consistent with the Springfield/Greene County Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of this proposal.

Mr. Baird asked staff if the building is currently under construction.  Mr. MacPherson confirmed.  Mr. Baird asked if this should have been addressed prior to construction.  Mr. MacPherson stated he was unclear of the exact process it has gone through and would be willing to research and provide more information.

Mr. Hansen noted this area was blighted in 1966 and asked how long can an area be considered blighted.  Mr. MacPherson responded that it can be blighted until the blight is removed. 

Mr. Rognstad informed Commission that City staff had the City Attorney look at this issue.  City Council has to specifically remove the blight. Mr. Rognstad continued that although the area may be completely redeveloped, unless the City Council takes action, the blighting still applies.  City is reevaluating to decide if there are other areas which need to remove the blight designation.

Mr. Hansen asked for clarification from Staff on what Commission is being asked to decide regarding this proposal and if it was whether this development can accept tax abatements or is this some else Commission is to decide.  Mr. MacPherson stated the Commission’s role is to find whether or not the redevelopment project is consistent with the comprehensive development plan.

Ms. Roling asked for clarification that if once a property is considered blighted, what is the plan to take it out of blight or does it stay in place until the owner decides otherwise.  Mr. MacPherson stated that it can happen in different ways, one being a Chapter 99 Blighting.  Mr. MacPherson continued that it typically covers a geographical area which includes a number of properties, so as time goes on, they are eligible for tax abatement if they redevelop but occur at different times and are different projects.  Each project has to go before the LCRA for approval before moving forward; that has been the case with this particular proposal.  Another method is through Chapter 353 Development which is very specific to the project itself, an abatement discussion about specific property, not a geographical area.  The abatements are different.  Under Chapter 99, property taxes can be abated 100% for 25 years and under Chapter 353, they are frozen at the existing level for 10 years and for the final 15 years, they are brought up to the current level.

Ms. Roling said according to this report and the designation of it being blighted, it appears there are safety issues.  Ms. Roling asked if there was a requirement for a property owner to improve that property.  Mr. MacPherson said if there was a danger of life or safety, Building Development Services can remedy that situation through a Dangerous Buildings process. 

Mr. Young asked since the property is already under construction, and Commission denies this request, will construction need to desist.  Mr. MacPherson stated this particular project went before the LCRA and they affirmed blighted was approved in 1966.  The applicant also resubmitted the redevelopment plan to the LCRA.  The Board found in favor of the blight and approved the redevelopment plan with the blight.  This step was now complete in order to go before Commission for their determination to find whether redevelopment, exclusive of the blight, if the redevelopment plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the City.

Mr. Rognstad informed Commission if they don’t find it in conformance of the plan, then they wouldn’t get the tax abatement but they could continue with the construction.

Commissioners and Staff continued discussion.  After discussion, Mr. Lawhon asked if this case would require a public hearing.  Mr. Rognstad confirmed. 

Mr. Lawhon opened the public hearing. 

Mr. Shawn Whitney, attorney presenting United Campus Housing, LLC, 901 St Louis Street, Suite 1800, noted he would like to speak in favor to this proposal and would be available to answer questions.

Mr. Whitney informed Commission the applicant is not asking for Commission to approve the tax abatement; the applicant is asking Commission to approve the redevelopment plan. The blight from 1966 has been reaffirmed.  The process for the blight is for the applicant to go before the LCRA and ask to approve the application for the Chapter 99 tax abatement.  Once the applicant goes through that process where P&Z confirms the applicant’s redevelopment plan presented is in conformance with the comprehensive plan, the applicant then goes before the City Council and affirms that also.  After approval from Council, the applicant returns to the LCRA with an application for Chapter 99 tax abatement.  According to the LCRA’s policy, an applicant can submit an application for tax abatement up to and within, he believes, 60 days of the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.  Mr. Whitney offered to answer questions regarding the application.

Mr. Baird asked if Commission approves the redevelopment plan, if it would remove the blight from this parcel or if t affects it any other way. Mr. MacPherson stated the area remains blighted until Council removes the blight. In a redevelopment area, as there is a project which is blighted, then it impacts the value of all those properties within the area. 

Mr. Lawhon offered the opportunity for citizens to speak regarding this proposal.  With no further questions, Mr. Lawhon closed the Public Hearing.

Ms. Roling motioned to approve Monroe Redevelopment Plan.  Mr. Hansen seconded the motion.  The motion carried as follows:  AYES:  Baird, Hansen, Lawhon, McClelland, Ray, Roling, and Young.  NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None.  ABSENT: Coltrin and Edwards.

7.     Form-Based Code                                        Planning staff

Mr. Rognstad stated a memo was sent outlining the experiences of some communities which adopted Form Based Code, being called a variety of titles.  Communities have worked through a number of issues through the years, still using the Codes.  Some have mandatory districts, an overlay, where one could conform to the overlay requirements of a Form Based Code or conforms to the existing zoning. 

City provided this information to Commission seeking questions or concerns Commission may have regarding this proposal.  City would like to present this proposal with another public hearing inviting comment again but first wanted to address Commission concerns.

Mr. Lawhon asked Mr. Rognstad if there were difficulties with community-wide agreement.  Mr. Rognstad confirmed and stated because the code was much more design oriented than what the communities were used to.  Mr. Lawhon asked if any communities abandoned this process or if it was more of adjusting along the way.  Mr. Rognstad confirmed and also stated that adjusting along the way would be the City’s intent as well.

Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Rognstad if there was already concern Commission hadn’t yet heard.  Mr. Rognstad stated the design charrette took place at the Idea Commons.  Some property owners expressed concerns but were willing to take a further look from the standpoint that it was optional.  Mr. Rognstad said in the design charrette participation from some of the development community, they didn’t seem to have concern.  If this proposal went city-wide and became mandatory, more would probably be heard.  At this point, the City is only looking at the small area in Idea Commons, trying to create same character seen throughout entire downtown area. 

Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Rognstad if any of the property owners expressed optimism this would enhance the value of their properties.  Mr. Rognstad responded no one had so indicated. Mr. Rognstad continued some concern was expressed when doing the design charrette.  Some property owners were contacted by people who were interested in developing.  There may be some interest but the current problem is dealing with a difficult economy, with businesses stating they couldn’t afford to relocate. Mr. Rognstad said the City reassured them this was not something that would force them out of their property and make them change to something else. An inventory of the Idea Commons area, infrastructure, utilities, street work, etc so it can be prioritized and emphasize the areas in the Idea Commons area where development is encouraged and don’t expect development to curb throughout the whole area.  City is still looking at the CORE study with the floodplain followed by funding issues.

Ms. Roling asked Mr. Rognstad what the boundaries are for Idea Commons. Mr. Rognstad responded it is on the south side along Water Street, west side is Campbell, north is Chestnut, east is the railroad track - just east of Washington Avenue where it goes under the Chestnut via-dock, approximately 80 acres.  Under the current situation, about half of it is developable; most of the southern half is not developable because of the floodplain.  Ms. Roling asked if the Jordan Valley West Meadows was included.  Mr. Rognstad stated it was not but if this is successful, we may take another look.  Mr. Rognstad continued that another area which has also been discussed for consideration is College Street between Downtown and Kansas Expressway. 

Ms. Roling asked if anyone estimated the cost to a developer to do a charrette.  Mr. Rognstad stated it was not.  Mr. Rognstad continued other communities where private developers have done it and by looking over the material, they spent quite a bit of money.  In setting up the code, other communities hired consultants, spending upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  If it is set up here, the City would probably set up the districts more so than private developers.  Ms. Roling asked if the City would bill the developer for the City’s time.  Mr. Rognstad said they would do a larger area that would be more than one property.  The City would come in up front, like with Idea Commons, and designate the zone and prepare the design standards for that zone based on public input received.  Ms. Roling asked if the first developer who started and paid for the process and charrette, would essentially be paying for the other developers’ charrette who then follow behind.  Mr. Rognstad confirmed and stated the first developer would typically have control for the entire property, which normally tends to be Greenfields. 

Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Rognstad if there were successes in any of the studied communities which the City could draw from.  Mr. Rognstad stated he didn’t go to Grand Rapids, Michigan for the leadership visit; there was a real interest because Grand Rapids believed it did a lot for their downtown in preserving the character.  It has been successful however some developers may not be used to some constraints they may have.

Ms. Roling asked if this goes through a charrette, planning, or envisioning process if it instead could be handled by doing an ordinance with certain restrictions as opposed to doing this for an entire area.  Mr. Rognstad stated this could be done through a planned development with certain policies for certain areas for a specific type of planned development which reflects design ideas. Part of the idea is to do the planning process and in the design charrette creates a concept for the area of how it is to work.  Form Based Code is much more pedestrian oriented.  In many cases, once the concept is created, the public begins to develop the infrastructure in order to make it work whether it’s increased transit, additional sidewalks, etc.  The community based on that plan is making a commitment for that type of development and some means are needed to ensure the development community comes along behind it and does what needs to be done from the private-side; otherwise investments could be potentially wasted. 

Mr. McClelland stated his first concern is regarding being told how a design should be.  Mr. McClelland continued his second concern is regarding Mr. Rognstad’s Memo, Form Based Code and Experiences of Other Communities, page 7, 4-2802.  Mr. McClelland said where it states “shall”, “should” and “may”, in his opinion, if a law is written; it should be black letter law.  The “shall”, “should” and “may” gives someone an opportunity to do whatever is their whim.  Mr. McClelland stated if he was to vote tonight, he would vote “no” but was open to learn more about the Form Based Code.  Mr. Rognstad said architects are constrained by ordinances and the building codes currently set in place.  Mr. McClelland shared he is concerned with the façade of the buildings.  Mr. Rognstad stated there is a rhythm and pattern to the buildings that is trying to be captured, not being completely uniform.

Mr. Hansen asked if “shall” means there would be no variance.  Mr. Rognstad confirmed.  Mr. Hansen noted there are few times the term “shall” is placed although there are many times “should” is indicated.  Mr. Rognstad stated the first section, under “Intent”; it discusses more what “should” be done with the idea of things which are trying to be achieved.  When getting into more of the requirements, there could be more “shall” terms than “should” terms but will depend on how it is drafted.  The part being now looked at adopting is the framework on how to create the Form Based Code District.  Mr. Rognstad continued the City will return and hold an additional design charrette for the Idea Commons which will create the Form Based Code District, almost like a Planned Development; each can have different characteristics based on the area. 

Mr. Lawhon asked Mr. Rognstad when the draft Form Based Code was initially brought before the Planning & Zoning Commission it was presented as a development option.  He asked if that was still the case?  Mr. Rognstad responded in the affirmative.  Mr. Lawhon then asked so the developer would have the option to go with traditional zoning or to follow the Form Based Code?  Mr. Rognstad confirmed the option would be available but once the decision was made to use the Form Based Code, it would be difficult to amend to another zoning district.


Mr. Young asked Mr. Rognstad where the idea for Form Based Code originated and if there was a problems associated with implementation.  Mr. Rognstad responded that the idea was developed during an impact trip to Grand Rapids, Michigan, by City and Chamber staff.

Mr. Young asked Mr. Rognstad if it was discovered during research if any communities started this process and then bailed, or did any communities put it all in place and then removed it.  Mr. Rognstad stated restrictions tend to get watered down but hasn’t found a community where the Form Based Code idea was completely given up. 

Ms. Roling stated her concern that deep setbacks would be difficult for the disabled.  Mr. Rognstad replied the City is trying to achieve something similar to what is currently downtown; wider sidewalks and transit. 

Ms. Roling commented that in her experience, form based communities make it difficult, stringent, and expensive.  Mr. Rognstad noted some communities are more stringent than others; it was learned during research that one community’s proposed development must get approved with the town architect.

Mr. Lawhon asked Mr. Rognstad what is expected from Commission during this meeting.  Mr. Rognstad responded the City is seeking comments from Commission with plans of scheduling a public hearing on this proposal.  Mr. Rognstad continued that the design community and people from Idea Commons would be invited to speak on this issue.

Mr. Young, referring to page 6, Section 4-2801, C, Item 1 “…with consistent building forms on both sides…” stated that from his perspective, and concern, that the Formed Based Code might create a development where all buildings looked alike and lacked any originality.   Mr. Young asked for clarification regarding the meaning “consistent on both sides”.  Mr. Rognstad said it’s more of consistency of bringing the building up to the street having entry ways and doors on the street, not just blank walls.  Mr. Young asked for clarification regarding “building forms”.  Mr. Rognstad stated typically there is a range of height with leeway within that range.  Mr. Young continues to reference the same section, “buildings facing across the street-space contributes to a clear public space and street-space identity”, asked for clarification f this is a wall or something similar to define that space.  Mr. Rognstad stated a lot of codes will require a wall if there isn’t a building; the wall may not be high or solid but it will define public space vs. private space.  Mr. Young understands what the City is trying to achieve but is concerned it’s adding more restrictions to architects and having the lack of freedom to better serve clients.

Mr. Young, referencing to page 6, Section 4-2801, C, Item 3, asked for clarification regarding the term “active front.”  Mr. Rognstad stated typically that the front door is there, the more active use of the commercial use building is there.  If it’s not commercial, windows would need to be able to open-up on the street, giving a sense of activity.

Mr. Young, pages 6 & 7, Section 4-2801, C, Item 4, asked if “views are directed to the street-space and interior gardens/court-yards, not into neighboring lots” means if a taller building exists in-between two smaller buildings, there can only be windows on windows facing the street and facing the back, so you can’t look down on your neighbor.  Mr. Rognstad said in many cases, windows can be on the sides but with an element of protection added to insure private back-yard space, typically from up above.  In some cases, higher windows are placed.

Mr. Young, referencing page 7, Section 4-2801, B, commented the word “or” seemed to make it a choice for the developer but as previously described, much of that area is industrial and if a developer would like to redevelop it into a Mixed-Use environment, moving into the Form Based Code would be required.  Mr. Young asked Mr. Rognstad if that is correct.  Mr. Rognstad stated a developer could ask for rezoning. 

Mr. Young, referencing page 8, Section 4-2803, voiced concern regarding the term “architectural standards”.  Understands codes need to be complied and dealt with because of the health, safety, and welfare of the public but is concerned about things becoming too restrictive.  Mr. Rognstad responded each district will be different; architectural standards can be as restrictive or lax as the community makes them.  Mr. Young asked if that will still yet be defined.  Mr. Rognstad said it was like a planned development; in the zoning district there are planned development requirements on how to create a planned development district.  This proposal is the layout of how to create a Form Based Code District.  When the design charrette is created, agreement is then made on what those architectural standards will be for that specific area. 

Mr. Young, referencing page 12, Section 4-2805, Item E, asked if this is relevant to each zone or in the same transect in a T-1 or T-5.  Mr. Rognstad stated the intent is to look at each property individually and if there is a unique situation, then a deviation or variance could be done based on that situation.

Mr. Young, referencing page 12, Section 4-2806, Item A, asked for clarification what the term “process administratively” mean.  Mr. Rognstad stated the developer wouldn’t have to return to Commission or Council for special approval.

Mr. Young suggested the City offer a free permit and review process to a developer to use the Form Based Code.

Mr. Ray, referencing page 8, Section 4-2803, A, Item 2, “…The intent of the building envelope standards are to shape vital public space throughout each FBC District through placement and envelope controls on building that frame the street-space.”  Mr. Ray asked if the basic idea of Form Based Code is to create a sense of place, and not to regulate and make rigid the same on each sides of the street.  Mr. Rognstad confirmed that it is the main emphasis but there are design standards which provide that character that is trying to be achieved. 

Mr. Hansen, referencing page 14, Section 4-2807, D, Item 1, “…The frontages assigned to the S-Grid shall not exceed 30% of the total length within a Pedestrian Shed” asked Mr. Rognstad for clarification regarding that statement.  Mr. Rognstad responded the Pedestrian Shed is a comfortable five minute walk with the idea that the developer would want the highest design standards would be on the primary frontages, but along secondary frontages, parking lots and vehicular access, etc would be allowed. The percentage amount was just an example, making some sense, but it isn’t the magical number. 

Mr. Hansen, referencing page 15, Section 4-2807, E, Item 3, “The restoration or rehabilitation of an existing building shall not require the provision of parking nor on-site storm water retention/detention in addition to that existing” asked Mr. Rognstad if the developer would be released from having to provide Best Management Practices.  Mr. Rognstad confirmed this is current practice standard when rehabilitating a building.  The City doesn’t require the developer do provide stormwater detention as the impervious surface is already identified, but may require additional parking if the intensity of use dictates the need. 

Mr. Young asked Mr. Rognstad if before the charrette takes place, will the City identify the locations of spaces or will the design community dictate where the spaces will be placed. Mr. Rognstad responded that when the City did the design charrette, the City picked several sites specifically to work on.  The City looked at the site on the southwest corner, it was pointed out it was a terminated vista, to take that into consideration, and asked what should be placed there.  They then came up with the designs.  Mr. Rognstad continued there are a lot of designs people come up with while working on different sites.  The focus then becomes to looking at what was consistent that people thought would be good for that area.  Mr. Rognstad shared another iteration comes back with the original ideas for the site but they don’t quite fit and then take the character ideas which have been brought forth and redesign it to make it look that way.  Once that agreement is made how the development should look, the code is then written.

Mr. Lawhon asked Mr. Rognstad how much of this proposal has been shared with the architectural and design development throughout Springfield.  Mr. Rognstad stated it was brought to Developer Issues Input Group (DIIG) where some representatives attended.  Many design firms were invited to the charrette; five or six architects attended.  Part of the problem is that design community here in Springfield has recently shrunk but the invitation was extended throughout the design community. 

Mr. Lawhon suggested there be neighborhood meetings, workshops, seminars with all the stakeholders involved.  Mr. Lawhon continued what may return to the Planning & Zoning Commission for final approval may look very different from what has been presented at this moment.  Mr. Rognstad said this could be done and asked Commission if they would like to participate, and if so, how much, in future neighborhood meetings regarding this proposal.  Mr. Lawhon shared he didn’t envision public hearings before Commission but a lot of ground work to be done before it returns to Commission.  Mr. Rognstad responded the City could proceed in that direction, setting up workshops and inviting Commission to attend.

Mr. Young shared the AIA (American Institute of Architects) meets once a month.  Mr. Young said if he is allowed, since he’s on Commission, he would like to give a presentation to AIA members to see if he can obtain feedback regarding this proposal.  Mr. Rognstad he didn’t believe that would be a problem. Mr. Young asked Mr. Rognstad what is the City’s next step to move forward with this proposal.  Mr. Rognstad stated the City was seeking comments and provide additional research if needed, and at a minimum, hold another public hearing before Commission.  The City would be fine hosting workshops and presentations as well. 

Mr. Lawhon asked Mr. Rognstad what the City needs Commission to do specifically during this meeting.  Mr. Rognstad stated the City wanted their comments, which Commission has done.  Mr. Rognstad there is nothing they are aware of that is occurring which places a time crunch on this proposal. 

Mr. MacPherson stated the map included shows clean-up sites, not building lots.  The clean-up sites have been designated and different grants have been applied for those.  When this area is developed, it will be a green space and an open space.  The City has covenants on it that do not allow buildings because the contamination is being capped.  There will be trails, green space, and open park space.

The meeting adjourned at 8:59.



volunteer boards and comissions; photo of volunteer board meeting in progress boards and commissions home

Contact Us

Planning and Development Department
Busch Municipal Building
First Floor
840 Boonville Avenue
Springfield, MO 65802

Related Info