Minutes for the Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Date: July 7, 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: Matthew Edwards, Vice-Chair; King Coltrin; Gloria Roling; Phil Young; Jay McClelland; Thomas Baird, IV; Jim Hansen; Planning and Development Manager; Mike MacPherson, Principal Planner; Thomas E. Rykowski, Assistant City Attorney; Sandy Goddard, Administrative Assistant. Absent: Shelby Lawhon; Jason Ray.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:          

The minutes of the June 9, 2011, Planning and Zoning Commission were approved unanimously.

COMMUNICATIONS:

Mr. MacPherson proposed a study session on July 21st, 2011 to discuss several issues, one being home occupations due to the economy, and people using houses such as time shares and vacation rentals for less than 30 days. There would be no cases on the agenda and a restricted time limit to review items.

FINALIZATION AND APPROVAL OF CONSENT ITEMS:
(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.    PD 271 Amended, Final Development Plan                                        Diventures, LLC
      (5225 S. Campbell)

2.    Subdivision Variance 334                                        TEA Properties Mo II, LLC
      (S. Highway 65, W. side of 6000 block)

Mr. McClelland motioned to approve Consent Items, PD 271 Amended FDP and Subd Variance 334. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion.  Motion carried as follows:  AYES:  Edwards, Coltrin, Hansen,   McClelland, Roling, Young, and Baird.  NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None.  ABSENT:  Lawhon and Ray.

HEARINGS: 

ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS:

3.    Z-06-2011                                        Mark Jones
      (1503 N. Grant)

Mr. MacPherson introduced the case, stating the applicant requests to rezone approximately 0.17 acres, generally located at 1503 N. Grant Avenue, from an R-MD, Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential District, to a LB, Limited Business DistrictThe case was heard previously by Commission on May 12, 2011 and Commission recommended approval by vote of 9-0 of the rezoning for this particular property. At the Public hearing before City Council the same statements were made by staff and applicant. City Council asked some questions regarding how the right of way was determined. Mr. MacPherson said there was a policy and a formula used that is based upon the classification of the street, that requires a certain footage of right-of-way.
It appears that in this case, the possible development in a limited business district that this zoning was proposing, would not create an impact that would require that amount of right of way dedication.  As a result of this discussion, the City Council remanded the case back to Commission for review. The findings for staff recommendations were reviewed. Staff would recommend that there would be no right of way dedication as previously proposed in the report, just the conditions for closing the drive ways and for the easement for traffic control.
Mr. MacPherson states City Council is going to review the policies and ordinances that are currently in place dealing with right of way dedication. Because this case highlighted the problem, they will try to identify and develop a new policy to deal with future cases. Staff is recommending approval of this zoning, minus the right of way dedication.
 Mr. Hanson refers to the staff comments report #5, asking for clarification.

Staff states they were looking for 10 additional feet on each road, which is a little less than what is typically required for that type of road classification.
Mr. MacPherson commented that this isn’t a decision that the Planning Department is proposing to Planning & Zoning Commission. A significant discussion with Public Works has taken place, and the Director of Public Works concurs that we should not be asking for it at this site.
Mr. Coltrin asks for clarification because his understanding was, regardless of impact from the development, the city required that many feet of any development that came in; that’s not the way it’s been?
Mr. MacPherson says that is exactly the way it has been.
Mr. Rognstad comments that on Monday night the City Council is going to refer this to the Plans and Policy Committee, and we are going to lay out some of the issues. What you state is true, that we have required whatever the standard is for the sheet classification, and there are some issues with doing that and the idea of how much impact is the development creating.  We are going to be looking at that and we will write a report, the Plans and Policy Meetings are public, but we will give the report to commission so you can follow along.
Mr. Edwards opened the public hearing.

Kevin Lowe, Olsson Associates, Engineer, 550 St. Louis, came forward. He states he is not representing the applicant, but he does a lot of these things every month and that you are making a wheeling and dealing game here, so consistency is where we live.
Mr. McClelland asks Kevin for an explanation of his comments, saying that he is not an engineer and would like clarification.
Mr. Lowe refers to a case that will come to commission next month that is rezoning property that was GM, General Manufacturing. Years ago we rezoned it to HC, Highway commercial. Now we are coming back and rezoning it to General Manufacturing. We have to dedicate additional right of way in front for Glenstone. There is already a turn lane there, already sidewalks there, and there will never be any improvements on Glenstone, but that is the policy. You have to be consistent. I understand your taking the right of way, but he is also getting a benefit out of this property; he is able to run a business out of a residential property and it will be years and years before they build a turn lane. This is never going to come upon their list, but that is a policy we professionals live by, and I can tell you I would be in here the next month going, well you did that for him, ten (10) feet along Glenstone at $5 a square foot, it means X to this guy.
Mr. McClelland acknowledges understanding.
Mr. Rognstad states that the intent is to come up with a policy that would be consistent, but flexible, depending on the case. We would look at what the impact would be, and then the requirements would be based on that impact.  There would be a formula, and it would not be everybody does the same exact amount.

Mr. Baird asks about developing a new policy, how would this affect previous cases, or cases that are in progress, asking if someone could come back and petition the commission or staff or appropriate body, whatever that may be, to get the right of way amount reduced?
Mr. Rognstad comments that you possibly could do that, but when we make changes, we don’t go back ourselves and try to correct things.
Mr. Baird asks what the appropriate steps would be in order to get that done, or is there a way in which to do that?
Mr. Rognstad comments that it would depend on how it was done. It would probably go back through the rezoning process if it was done through a zoning case.
With no further appearances, Mr. Edwards closes the Public Hearing.
Mr. Young motioned to approve Z-06-2011.  Mr. Baird seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows:
AYES:  Edwards, Coltrin, Hansen, McClelland, Roling, Young, Baird.  NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None.  ABSENT:  Lawhon and Ray.

4.     Z-09-2011                                         Houston Kerr
          (2430-1/2 N. Park)

Mr. MacPherson introduced this case stating the purpose of this request is to rezone approximately 0.82 acres, generally located at 2430 ½ North Park Avenue, from an R-SF, Residential Single Family District, to an HC, Highway Commercial District. The applicant operates a medical clinic at a location adjacent to the requested property requesting a zoning variance, which would allow him to have traffic egress onto Park Avenue. In our zoning ordinance, we do not allow commercial properties to have traffic egress into residential districts. In examining this case, the staff advised applicant it was more appropriate to ask for a zoning change, rather than a zoning variance. The applicant owns the property to the south which is the Medical Clinic on Kearney, and the ingress and egress is only on Kearney Street at this time. It is insufficient to handle the amount of traffic he has to and from the Medical Clinic. He has requested that the property to the north of that be zoned Highway Commercial to allow the egress only to Park Street as another method for leaving the property. The staff report recommendations, conditions, and traffic division comments were reviewed. A Neighborhood meeting was held and contact made with all property owners living within 185 feet of the Clinic, and there was no opposition. Staff is recommending approval.

Mr. McClelland asks about the access that will be available for the two residences.

Mr. MacPherson clarifies the available access.

Mr. Baird asked about the current homes on the property and how they fit into the zoning change.

Mr. MacPherson states it would be a non-conforming use, and could remain as long as it continues to exist as a residence.

Mr. Coltrin asked if they had requested a variance to allow a commercial drive to exit through a residential zoning, would that have been possible, or could they have gotten a variance?

Mr. MacPherson states the only time we can grant a variance is when there is no other alternative available, and that is why this was done. That is the reason for the proposed zoning change.

Mr. Edwards opens the public hearing.

An opportunity was given for citizens to express their views.

Kevin Lowe, Olsson Assoc., 550 St. Louis St., representing Dr. Kerr, referred to the map, stating that the houses are already zoned Highway Commercial. He reviewed the access easement and how the traffic would exit on to Park St. and states that his client will pave the gravel driveway. He asked for questions from Commission and staff.

Mr. Baird questions Mr. Lowe about the City stopping the project, if that is why there appears to be construction going on?

Mr. Lowe states that is correct.

Mr. Baird questioned Mr. Lowe about the requirement for access on to Park Street.

Mr. Lowe explains that they could leave the gravel road as it is, as it’s his client’s property as cross access easement, but it will be paved.

Having no other speakers, Mr. Edwards closed the public hearing.

Mr. Coltrin made a motion to approve Z-09-2011. Ms. Roling seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows:
AYES:  Edwards, Coltrin, Hansen, McClelland, Roling, Young, Baird.  NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None.  ABSENT:  Lawhon and Ray.

PLANNED DEVELOMENT:

5.     PD 338, Final Devlopment Plan                                         Martin Property Management, LLC
          (E. Lakewood St., S. side of 1100 block)

Mr. MacPherson states the purpose of this case is to approve the final development plan. The Administrative Review Committee cannot approve due to its lack of conformity to the approved planned development ordinance but which merits approval despite this lack of conformity. He states that he would submit that this does meet and is in substantial conformance and if commission can find that it is in conformance, the process can end here. This is the project that deals with the Alzheimer/Memory Care Facility on Lakewood. He reviews staff recommendations and states the only difference in this case is the language. As a result of the Neighborhood discussion, an amendment was made that requires a six (6) foot tall shadow box fence that will be provided along the western property line, except the required front yard. The applicant is proposing additional planting between the fence and the street to add visual variety along the street and break up the view of the fence along the street.

Mr. Edward opens the public hearing.

An opportunity was given for citizens to express their views.

Neil Fossnight, Olsson Assoc., 550 St. Louis St. representing JEA Group, spoke in favor of the Final Development Plan.

Having no other speakers, Mr. Edwards closed the public hearing.

Mr. Hansen motioned to approve Final Development Plan – Planned Development 338Mr. McClelland seconded the motion.  Motion carried as follows:  AYES:  Edwards, Coltrin, Hansen, McClelland, Roling, Young, and Baird.  NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None.  ABSENT:  Lawhon and Ray. 

PRELIMINARY PLAT:

6.     Roberts Industrial Park renewal                                         Javalina , LLC, and Forerunner, LLC
          (N. Westgate Ave., E. side of 1000-100 blocks)

Mr. MacPherson states the purpose of this case is to renew a Preliminary Plat creating a 9 lot industrial subdivision. Staff findings are that the applicant’s proposal, with all the conditions that are listed, subject to final plat, are consistent with the City’s subdivision regulations and recommends approval.

Mr. Edwards opens the public hearing.

Eric Roberts, 1300 West Poplar St, owner, states he is here to answer any questions and ask the commission to approve the request.

Having no other speakers, Mr. Edwards closed the public hearing.

Mr. Coltrin motioned to approve Roberts Industrial Park RenewalMr. Baird seconded the motion.  Motion carried as follows:  AYES:  Edwards, Coltrin, Hansen, McClelland, Roling, Young, and Baird.  NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None.  ABSENT:  Lawhon and Ray.  

ANY OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMISSION JURISDICTION:

7.     Civility Tenets                                   City of Springfield
        (City-Wide)

Mr. MacPherson states that the City Manager asked that he bring this to the attention of all the boards, requesting that commission adopt the Civility Tenets as proposed by the Good Community Committee. Mr. Rykowski will prepare a resolution that could be presented at the next commission meeting on July 21, 2011. For the record, Mr. MacPherson reviews the individual civility tenets.

Commission discusses the tenets and supports of the resolution.

Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the Civility TenetsMs. Roling seconded the motion.  Motion carried as follows:  AYES:  Edwards, Coltrin, Hansen, McClelland, Roling, Young, and Baird.  NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None.  ABSENT:  Lawhon and Ray.

ADJOURNMENT:

There being no other items for discussion, Mr. Wheeler adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:22 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 


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
417.864.1611

Related Info