Minutes
Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Date:

June 11, 2009

Time:

7:00 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: Jack Wheeler-Chair, Edwin Alden-Vice Chair, Peggy Hedrick, Ray Shermer, Jay McClelland, Shelby Lawhon, Matthew Edwards, Mike MacPherson, Principal Planner, Planning and Development, Ralph Rognstad, Director, Planning and Development, Nancy Yendes, Assistant City Attorney; ABSENT: King Coltrin, Michael Sutton.

Approval of Minutes:

The minutes for April 30, 2009 and May 14, 2009 were approved unanimously.

Communications:

Mr. MacPherson said Item 2, Request to Acquire 484, has been tabled indefinitely at the request of the applicant.

Mr. MacPherson said Commission should have received amendments to the staff reports of Item 6, Vacation 735 and Item 10, GI Text Amendments.

Mr. MacPherson said there is a correction to the staff report for Item 8, Street Name Change 69. Where it states the Police Department foresees issues with the request it should state does not foresee any issue with the request.

Mr. MacPherson said Items 5, Zoning Case Z-06-2009 and Item 9, Airport Overlay Amendments deal with the same piece of property and could be heard together.

Mr. MacPherson said staff received an area protest petition submitted from residents of Twin Springs Subdivision. Commission has been provided a copy.

Mr. Alden made a motion to suspend Commissions Rules of Procedure and change the order of the agenda to the following: Item 6, Vacation 735, will be heard as Item 4a; Item 11, Sulgrove Place Subdivision, will be heard as Item 4b; Item 4, Planned Development 330, will be heard as Item 4c and Item 9, Airport Overlay Amendments, will be heard as Item 5a. Mr. McClelland seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, McClelland, Lawhon, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Sutton

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. Relinquish Easement 735
    City Utilities
    (4370 South Repmo)
  2. Request to Acquire 484
    City Utilities
    (501, 505 & 511 East St. Louis)
  3. Subdivision Variance 331
    Neighbors Knoll, LLC
    (3026 East Evans)

Item 2 has been tabled indefinitely by the applicant.

Shermer made the motion to approve Items 1 and 3 of the Consent Agenda. Edwards seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, McClelland, Lawhon, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Sutton.

HEARINGS:

4a. Vacation 735 Positronic Industries, Inc. etal
(400 blocks of West Phelps and North Campbell)

Mr. MacPherson said this vacation shall not become effective until the following conditions are met. Sanitary sewer, CU gas, water and electric, AT&T and Mediacom services shall be relocated, abandoned or preserved with replacement easements. A fire apparatus and public access easement shall be dedicated along the entire east/west alley between Campbell and Main. A stormwater drainage easement is required for the existing box culvert in the east/west alley to be vacated and the legal for the easement should be identical to the alley to be vacated. The building is in the alley and the easement will be about 15 feet or whatever is allowable. The final condition is that an administrative replat will be recorded with the above mentioned easements shown. The request meets the approval criteria and all property owners have agreed to the request. Staff is recommending approval.

Rick Wilson, 2002 South Stewart, said this is an old area of downtown which has been neglected and abused since its creation. The original plat was recorded in the 1880’s and was amended about a year later in an attempt to reestablish the boundaries of the block. There have also been subsequent surveys that disagreed by approximately 10 feet on the location of the block boundary. Campbell, Main and Tampa have been redefined by ordinance and an attempt has been made to redefine Mill Street. The language is general, hard to follow and has been done over a period of 100 years or so. He has all five property owners in agreement and they will come forward with an administrative subdivision establishing the boundaries of each holding. One of the problems is that these two alleys are encroached on, of which, one is under the Positronic building another has two buildings that encroach by about 13 feet and the other runs through the CU Substation. Under the National Security Guidelines they cannot adequately control access to their property and is an important function of CU. This request would allow them to control their access and the easements would allow adequate access for fire and adjoining property owners. Positronics does receive chemicals at this location and if they were to ever have a spill the change would mean it happened on private, not public property, and would protect the City.

No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed.

Ms. Yendes said Commissions motion should state that Council should look at whether or not there should be a public access easement running through CU’s property if there is a Homeland Security issue. Staff can look into this question prior to the Council meeting.

Edwards made the motion to approve Vacation 735 with the caveat that Council determines whether or not public access through the CU Substation property is appropriate. Alden seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, McClelland, Lawhon, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Sutton

4b. Sulgrove Place Subdivision Gillenwaters Developers, Inc.
(3524 South Sulgrove)

Mr. MacPherson said this request is to approve a preliminary plat to subdivide less than two acres into a six lot single family residential subdivision. The lots in the proposed subdivision average 10,287 square feet. The lots across Sulgrove to the west average 18,700 square feet, while the lots to the east and the lots south of Salem Street average just over 6,000 square feet. There are also multi-acre tracts in the area. It is common as development pushes out from the center of a city, for multi-acre tracts to subdivide into smaller lots, as has happened in this area in the past. While the construction of the new cul-de-sac street would put a street near the house at 3516 South Sulgrove, it would allow for the creation of additional lots off the rear of that property in the future. The detention area will be on common area which will be owned and maintained by the property owners association. Because the common area will not have street frontage, an access easement is required to allow maintenance of the common area. This access easement must not be allowed to be fenced off by the adjacent lot owners, thereby blocking access to the detention basin. With the conditions of approval, the applicant’s request meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and staff recommends approval.

Rick Wilson, 2002 South Stewart, said the request meets all requirements and they agree with all conditions.

No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed.

Lawhon made the motion to approve Preliminary Plat – Sulgrove Place Subdivision. Hedrick seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, McClelland, Lawhon, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Sutton.

4c. Planned Development 330 Larry Childress etal
(4100 block South Highway 65 east & west sides)

Mr. MacPherson said Commission held a public hearing on this application at the April 16, 2009 meeting and tabled the application and continued the public hearing. Commission recommended the applicant meet with surrounding property owners and interested environmental groups to discuss concerns regarding the potential impact of the development on the adjacent residential properties, James River and area roadway system. The applicant’s development team held several meetings with various neighborhood and environmental groups following the April 16, 2009 public hearing and several changes have been made to the application as a result. The subject property consists of approximately 500 acres of property on the east and west sides of US Highway 65 north of Highway 60. This planned development will provide for a complementary mixed-use development of residential, office and commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as a potential activity center that is to be a location of significant business, office and housing. It is intended that additional development be concentrated in and around activity centers so as to optimize transportation investments, citizen convenience, investor confidence, a compact growth pattern and a sense of urban excitement. The combination of access, density and diversity allows activity centers to grow into community focal points. Approval of this request, along with the required public improvements, creates the opportunity for this property to develop as a regional shopping destination and capture traffic that might otherwise travel to Branson. The planned development is divided into four quadrants or areas of development and proposes a step-down concept of land uses whereby the intensity of development decreases as the property is developed away from US Highway 65 and the “core” or interior of the development and adjacent to existing low intensity residential development. The northwest and southwest quadrants are proposed to have development consistent with the city’s R-TH, Residential Townhouse District along the west and south boundaries of the development to provide a transition between the existing residential development and the proposed office and commercial uses on the interior of the development. In the northeast quadrant the applicant is proposing an area of R-TH type development along the northern boundary of the development with a transition to senior multi-family development (maximum 10 dwelling units per acre) and then to office and retail development to the south and west along US Highway 65. The R-TH designated areas in the northeast quadrant along Bedford, El Dorado and Gasconade are restricted to single family residential uses with individual lot sizes of at least 15,000 square feet. The specified R-TH areas may be substituted with office development if a minimum 100 foot wide bufferyard is provided with a 150 foot building setback. In addition, if office uses are developed all buildings would be required to remain below a thirty degree bulk plane from the property boundary. This proposal will provide for a mixed-use development with opportunities for employment and living in the area with the benefit of internal circulation as people live, work and shop in the same location. As an alternative to the mixed use proposal, this planned development would also permit the entire subject property to be developed with R-TH uses in conformance with the requirements set forth in this proposal. A traffic impact study would be required to identify the improvements that would be necessary on and off the site to support the proposed development. In addition, a major subdivision would be required to subdivide the property for development and could serve as the final development plan. The proposed planned development includes several requirements for reducing the impact on adjoining residential properties, primarily to the north and west. The applicant is proposing a one hundred foot wide bufferyard along the northern boundary of the northwest and northeast quadrants and anywhere non-R-TH uses within the development abut existing single family residential development. The applicant is also proposing a lower intensity of development than could be achieved through the normal requirements of the zoning ordinance for the requested types of uses. This proposal would permit office and retail development to develop to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.30 and 0.25, respectively, rather than 0.40 as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the proposed densities for the R-TH, Senior Multi-Family and Multi-Family development are lower than would normally be permitted for these types of uses with a maximum density of 8, 10 and 13 dwelling units per acre, respectively. The normal densities permitted for these types of development are 11 du/acre for the R-TH district and 19 du/acre for the R-LD, Low Density Multi-Family Residential District (subject to the Multi-Family Development Location and Design Guidelines). The applicant is proposing a building setback of 500 feet for multi-family development adjacent to existing residential properties. Multi-family Senior Living development is restricted to two stories if located within 500 feet of existing residential properties. The applicant is also proposing to provide buffer yards between the various “levels” of development or intensity of use areas to provide for additional open space and landscaping within the development. Development of the property requires addressing the lack of an adequate thoroughfare system in the area. The subject property will need to be subdivided with a major subdivision and development may be phased as long as the necessary improvements to support each phase are provided. However, with development of the multi-family, office, or retail uses there are several improvements that are required including a new interchange constructed on US Highway 65. As a requirement of a new interchange and development of this property, connectivity shall be made to the east including construction of a bridge over the James River to Route J generally following Farm Road 170. The roadway will be designed, and right-of-way dedicated, for a primary arterial roadway as identified in the Major Thoroughfare Plan. The exact routing of this connection has not been determined at this time. The alignment of this connection will be determined by Greene County in coordination with the City prior to development of this property and will involve public meetings regarding the various alternatives. Connectivity to the west will be provided with the extension of a primary arterial roadway (New Republic Road) west across Mentor and connecting to Lone Pine per the Major Thoroughfare Plan. Ultimately, the plan is for the roadway to continue west through the quarry and to Republic Road west of Glenstone Avenue, although the alignment of this connection has not been determined and the connection is not required as part of this development. As part of this development connection is also required to me made to the north, on the east side of US Highway 65, to provide a connection to Battlefield Road. The connection will be on a new alignment east of Farm Road 187. The new alignment to satisfy this requirement will be determined by a traffic impact study. The required street improvements within the subject area will be determined by the required traffic impact study for each phase of development. At the April 16, 2009 Commission public hearing on this application, the James River Basin Partnership as well as other others expressed interest in discussing development and storm water control alternatives. The applicant met with staff from the James River Basin Partnership, property owners in the area and ultimately City staff. As a result of the meetings, the applicant is proposing several changes to the application. As proposed, the development will incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) Integrated Management Practices (IMPs) which may include, but are not limited to, elimination of curbs and gutters on public streets and the utilization of crowned roads and grassed drainage swales, reduction of road widths to minimize impervious surfaces and the revision of roadway access designs from the properties. The development shall also use LID Best Management Practices in managing its storm water runoff and at least 50% of the first one inch of storm water from any storm event shall be retained on the individual lots for absorption. As part of this proposal, a 200 foot conservation easement will be provided along the James River. The purpose of the easement is to limit the development of the property along the water’s edge allowing only activities and improvements which do not damage the habitat or water quality of the river. This easement is required to be dedicated with subdivision of the land. The Parks, Open Space and Greenways Plan Element of the Comprehensive Plan shows the future corridor of the James River Greenway extension through the subject property. Upon subdivision integration of the Ozark Greenway Trail System into the green space areas along the James River as well as connections from that trail into the development will be required to provide for the use and enjoyment of the amenity by those living and working in this area. A development of this scope and magnitude requires careful consideration to ensure the best interest of the community is protected and that the resulting zoning will accommodate the intended development. Because of the lack of detail contained in the preliminary development plan (Exhibit 2) for this planned development, the final development plans for any multi-family, office and retail uses are required to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council for final action. The uses permitted by the planned development cannot be changed by Council as part of the approval of the final development plans; however the permitted intensity of development may be lower than allowable by the planned development based on the traffic impact study that is required to be submitted with each final development plan. The final development plan(s) will more specifically define the permitted uses, the development layout and the development intensities, and required public improvements including roadway connections. In addition, the applicant is required to submit a comprehensive signage plan at the final development plan stage. The comprehensive signage plan will dictate the type, number, size height and location of signs that will be permitted within the development based on the scale of the development. The signage plan is required to generally comply with the requirements of the sign code at the time of development however the number, spacing, size and height of signs shall not be less than what is currently permitted. In addition, the applicant is permitted two development signs – one on each side of the interchange. The property owners within 185 feet of the subject property will be notified of any review of a final development plan for multi-family, office and retail development to provide for a public review process of the detailed development plans for this project since they are not available at the preliminary stage. The required public infrastructure, both on and off-site as a result of this development could be extensive. The economic impact of this development on the community could also be significant. It is anticipated that a Community Improvement District, Neighborhood Improvement District, Development Agreement, Tax Increment Financing and/or other sources of funding available through the City, County and State may be sought to assist funding the improvements necessary for the development. The developer is responsible for providing the necessary feasibility studies, economic impact studies and other documents in seeking the use of these funding sources. Final determination of whether or not these funding sources are appropriate lies with City Council but a TIF is likely to be used. The Multi-Family Development Location and Design Guidelines were evaluated for this project because of the proposed multi-family development. The applicant is requesting a maximum density of 13 dwelling units per acre within the development. The site received a total score of 11 points on the assessment, which exceeds the point total needed for the proposal. The site scored one out of a potential two points in Land Use Accessibility, all out of a possible five points in the Connectivity Analysis, two points in Road Network Evaluation and all three points for Neighborhood Compatibility. If multi-family development occurs in the northwest quadrant of the development adjacent to existing single family residential it will be setback at least one-hundred feet from the existing single family residential development. The City is in the process of annexing a portion of the subject property. City Council approved a Resolution to initiate the annexation at their April 6, 2009 meeting and is expected to make a decision on the annexation at their July 13, 2009 meeting. Several changes have been made to this application following the April 16, 2009 Commission public hearing and subsequent meetings between the applicant, surrounding property owners, environmental groups and City staff. The proposed R-TH type development in the northeast quadrant of the development along Gasconade, El Dorado and Bedford Avenue was increased from a minimum depth of 150 feet to 300 feet. This will provide for a double loaded residential street to serve as a buffer between the existing residential development and the remainder of this proposed development. In addition, development of these areas would be restricted to single family homes with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Staff is concerned that based on the topography there may be a remnant tract that will not be able to access the proposed cul-de-sac. The remnant tract will not be able to be developed because access is not permitted to El Dorado per the restrictions contained in this proposal. An alternative development option is proposed which would allow the developer to develop office uses within the areas in the northwest, southwest and northeast areas designated for R-TH development when alternative buffer yard, height and building setback is provided. With this development alternative, a minimum 100 foot wide bufferyard would be required with extensive planting requirements for separation and screening between the uses. In addition, a 150 feet building setback would be required with all structures remaining below a thirty degree bulk plane from the property boundary. The proposed maximum floor area ratio permitted for office development was increased from 0.25 to 0.30. The proposed floor area ratio remains below what would normally be permitted for office development under the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance which is 0.40. The impervious surface ratio green space requirements were revised to include additional requirements. Each lot is required to provide at least 15% green space on the lot. In addition, each lot or tract shall provide 25% of the net lot area (the gross lot area less the building footprint) in pervious surfaces. Ten percent of the net lot area must be a pervious surface other than grass or planters. A requirement was added for a 500 foot building setback for any multi-family development from existing single family residential development. In addition, multi-family senior living development is restricted to a maximum of 2 stories if located within 500 feet of existing single family residential development. The bufferyard required adjacent to the northern boundary of the northwest and northeast quadrants for any development other than R-TH type development was increased from a minimum of 50 feet to a minimum of 100 feet wide. In addition, the required plantings were increased to provide for more understory and evergreen trees within the bufferyard. The applicant has also agreed to work with adjacent property owners during the development stage to discuss the bufferyards and planting plan. The applicant has included some requirements to help mitigate any impact that traffic from this development might have on the existing residential development to the north on the east side of US Highway 65. A requirement has been added that any residential properties developed along Gasconade, Bedford and El Dorado will not have direct access to those roads but will be required to access a public street system internal to the development. Indirect access from the development may be provided to the intersection of Gasconade and Bedford, however traffic calming measures will be utilized between the new arterial through the development (New Republic Road) and the above mentioned streets. The off-street parking requirements previously proposed have been removed. All non-residential development within the Planned Development will be responsible for determining their parking needs and provide the necessary parking. For all residential development, the normal parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the specific type of development will be required. The original requirements proposed by the applicant were confusing and would have been difficult to calculate. The current proposal will allow the individual uses to determine the parking needed to support the business and provide only what is necessary. A provision was added to allow amendments to the original comprehensive sign plans through the Final Development Plan process. Initially, a maximum of two plans may be submitted (one for each side of US Highway 65). The sign plans may be amended through the Final Development Plan process, however the entire area included in the original sign plan must be included. Language was added within the Planned Development that the final routing of the roadway to the east to Route J and the location of the bridge to be constructed over the James River will consider existing Comprehensive Plans and Studies prepared in recent years and accepted by the City and Greene County. The determination process will also include public hearings and community input. In an effort to address surrounding property owners concerns regarding the Gasconade Bridge and its fate as a result of the new interchange language has been added that requires the developer to endeavor to provide for the Gasconade Bridge to remain as part of the engineering for the new interchange. The development will utilize Low Impact Development standards and practices in the construction of improvements and the management of stormwater as outlined #5 above. The findings for staff recommendations focused on if this is an appropriate location for this type of land use. This proposal is consistent with the Growth Management and Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan which identifies the US Highway 65 and Highway 60 areas as a potential activity center suitable for high-intensity retail, office and residential uses. This proposal will provide for a mixed-use development with opportunities for employment and living in the area with the benefit of internal circulation as people live, work and shop in the same location. Significant public improvements will be provided upon full development of this property, including the construction of a new interchange on US Highway 65 and roadway connections to the east, west and north. The final development plans for this project are required to be approved by Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council because of the lack of detail at this stage. In addition, public notification will be given regarding review of the final development plans. The final development plan(s) will provide greater detail regarding specific uses, intensity of use, public improvements and signage. In contract staff’s findings for denial is that a development of this scope and magnitude requires careful consideration to ensure the best interest of the community is protected and that the resulting zoning will accommodate the intended development. This proposal is premature because many of the details of the proposed development are not known at this time. Staff recommends approval of this request.

Mr. Wheeler said if the project were to pass the development plan was likely to come in phases. He asked if the notification of property owners would be 185’ from the area that was had the final development plan or would it be 185’ from the entire property. Mr. MacPherson said staff would research that question.

Mr. Alden said in the list of changes Item E talks about a 500 foot buffer for any multi-family and a 100 foot buffer from senior multi-family. He asked if those are two distinctive categories. Mr. McPherson said that was correct because of the densities. Mr. Alden said Item J details the public hearings and community input about the 170 to J and the bridge across the James River. Item K said the developer would do whatever they can to save the Gasconade Bridge but says nothing about community input. He asked if that was because it involves MoDOT. Mr. MacPherson said yes; MoDOT would make that determination.

Ms. Hedrick said Mr. Platter said in his letter he was concerned on whether or not the application met the legal requirements of the ordinance. He also said Commission did not understand that the plans shall not be modified revoked or otherwise impaired. She asked if there is a hearing can there be modifications by the decision of the Commissioners. Ms. Yendes said the PD would have to be amended through the normal process like any other zoning amendment. The final development plans come back to Commission and Council. Ms. Hedrick asked when the final plans come back does Commission make any changes to the original PD or only the final development plan. If the PD is not specific then is there some leeway for decisions on the final plan. Ms. Yendes said there are appeal processes if you feel Commission has not complied with its authority. PD’s are often written to be flexible and you have to see if it is inside the intent of the PD. Ms. Yendes said it is very difficult to be specific on road locations because you are dealing with other jurisdictions. Staff has had a lot of discussions with the developer on how specific the PD can be. They have tried to make it as specific as they can taking into account you are dealing with two other jurisdictions. She said she disagrees with Mr. Platter on whether or not the application meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. How would you ever zone anything next to the county if you have to be specific with the location of streets. A PD is supposed to be flexible and meet unique needs of the community such as where the road system going to be located. Ms. Hedrick asked if it could be said that the application in its form meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the description of what Commission finds is the basis. Ms. Yendes said yes. The Law Department reviews the application before it comes to Commission and have had the discussions about if this is an adequate PD application. They had the applicant rewrite many sections to come within the requirements of the ordinance. Many changes were made over the road system.

Mr. MacPherson said the intensity of the development and the corresponding traffic impact study could change how it is done. He said in response to Mr. Wheeler’s earlier question the neighbors notified would live within 185’ of that phase of development.

Mr. Lawhon said Item 9 states the City is in the process of annexing a portion of the property. He asked what section they were referring to. Mr. MacPherson indicated the property on the overhead.

Geoff Butler, 319 North Main, said he has submitted a list of changes that have been made to this project since it began but most of that has been outlined by staff. At the last meeting they said they were more than willing to meet with any party that felt they would be impacted. He wanted to know what they thought the impact was so they could determine if they could revise the proposal to try to make accommodations. Many of the groups came with solutions to their concerns and they found creative ways to address most of them. Mr. Butler said he felt they made some fair concessions and have made the PD much better. The more they talked with the environmental people and researched the issues the more excited they were. He said they feel the ordinances within the city are not environmentally sensitive. The low impact development allows them to do the right thing and to provide for development in a more responsible way. They have been working on this proposal for ten years and this PD addresses the land uses. There are going to be a lot more public hearings and opportunities to discuss what is being done with this land and to make sure this goes forward in a responsible way. Overall, this is a much better PD than when they were before Commission in April. Mr. Butler said during Mr. MacPherson’s presentation he had stated that in the northeast quadrant the R-TH district could be replaced by a bufferyard and office zoning but in Article G that state that R-TH zone will only be single-family residences. The bufferyard and office option is not available.

John DeMerritt, 3951 South Mentor, said he has a question about the road through Mentor to Lone Pine. He asked what the white lines showing on the overhead means. Mr. MacPherson said they are not streets but are lanes for the mobile home park. Mr. DeMerritt said if a road runs through there what will be done with the 100 residents that live there. Mr. Wheeler said this is not a question and answer period but he is free to contact city staff. Mr. DeMerritt said he is one of the residents and there are a lot of senior citizens and he is concerned about where they will be moved to. Mr. Wheeler said these things will happen later and there will be public meetings. Mr. DeMerritt said there is no plan as to what to do with the people that live there. Mr. Wheeler said there is no plan at this time and will happen at a later time.

Terry Beavers, 3554 South Forestdale, said he represents Woodbridge Property Owners Association. He said he has been involved in gathering petitions and several homeowners have said they feel this development needs to be downsized. At the last meeting it was said that approving this would not cast it in stone but it would be granting the developers the density that would be least desirable for them. They feel this is not the place to put a development of this size. There are 81 landowners with property within 185’ of the proposal and 51 of those residents signed the petition. For that petition to be binding they needed signatures of 31% of the landowners and they received 48%. They gathered an additional 248 signatures from property owners outside the 185’ boundary and he is providing that petition to staff tonight. Mr. Beavers said the association met with Mr. Butler twice and Mr. Murray once to attempt to address their concerns. When they began they had three major concerns: increased traffic, a buffer between the senior multi-family and their homes and removal of the Gasconade Bridge. He said Mr. Butler addressed their concerns regarding the traffic and they are grateful for those changes. Mr. Butler attempted to address their concerns about the types of structures that would adjoin their properties by including two rows of single family homes alongside El Dorado, Bedford and Gasconade. They feel that is inadequate and they want four rows of homes along those roads and adding those homes should not be a problem. Mr. Beavers said Mr. Butler was quoted as saying that four rows of homes are not possible but if that makes or breaks the project it is not a viable project. The other concern is the Gasconade Bridge. The 2002 Southeast Springfield Development Study conducted by MPO shows a potential diamond interchange that kept the Gasconade Bridge and avoided residential lots. The study also said that the retention of the bridge was critical to providing emergency access to Woodbridge Neighborhood that would otherwise only be accessible to Battlefield. Mr. Butler said that an engineering study would be required if this project were to move forward and every attempt would be made to keep the bridge, which they appreciate. He said if the project goes forward the association would be involved in each stage of the process. Their meetings have been cordial and productive and they acknowledge that Mr. Butler has listened to their concerns and attempted to negotiate with them they feel their concerns have not been fully met. If this rezoning passes they will have to disclose the potential project to any buyers they may have for their properties and it could negatively affect home sales in their area. They have many more reservations about this project and their position remains that Commission should deny the rezoning.

Mr. Lawhon said he appreciates both oral and comments in writing. He said it would have been nice to have seen the petition before this meeting and he does not know what the specifics are of that petition. They have received a petition from Twin Springs that states they object. Unfortunately, it does not state specific objections and asked if his petition does. Mr. Beavers said he did not think they needed to be handed in until Council. Mr. Wheeler said if there are a certain number of signatures it triggers a certain process at Council. Ms. Yendes said a protest petition that affects the number of votes needed at Council. They need to be submitted after Commission because if there is a significant change to what they are protesting the petitions have to be resigned. Mr. Lawhon said earlier Mr. Beavers stated the PD should be downsized and asked for more specifics on what he meant. Mr. Beavers said when they spoke with Mr. Butler they asked for four rows of houses because in certain areas of the subdivision you can see beyond where two rows of houses would be. You could see apartments or senior living units.

Mr. Alden said he understands the two rows of houses versus four and the comments about the Gasconade Bridge but he does not understand the comments about the development being overreaching and needs to be downsized. He asked if they would prefer the property be sold to several developers who would try to piece this area together or deal with one developer. Mr. Beavers said with all of the neighborhoods surrounding the property he feels the development should be downsized. Mr. Alden said all of the property is developable property with one large tract and one developer. Neighborhoods have more input on how it comes together and becomes the focal point to a community instead of a piece meal puzzle like many other developments. Mr. Beavers said they are not opposed to some development but they feel there needs to be more residential. Mr. Alden said they want to downsize the retail. Mr. Beavers said yes.

Ms. Hedrick said she appreciated the letter and presentation from their neighborhood association. She said with all of the things going on in the country and our local area this could be a benefit to their neighborhood. She said she is not convinced and this could be a good thing for the area.

Mr. Wheeler said he would like to clarify that in any development Commission looks at rezoning the land and it does not mean that it has to be sold as one piece of property. Different components can be sold different landowners. When the land is sold to others they have to follow the rules passed by Commission and Council. He would not be surprised that there are other developers.

James Maddox, 3870 East Forrest Ridge Lane, said they are concerned about the size and scope of the development and this development does not just affect the property in question but their neighborhoods as well. This development and the infrastructure required to support it will alter the face of much of southeast Springfield. He believes there is no need to hurry a zoning decision because it is a concept with no developer or financial backing. Given the costs involved it is not likely a developer with the financing to develop the property will appear any time soon. A zoning change guaranteeing a developer the right to disrupt neighborhoods and build major traffic ways has an immediate impact on the property owners. They will not know if, when or what type of development will ultimately be put on the property. There is no need or justification to allow a zoning change that will impact the area before a capable developer comes forward. They believe the scale of this development and its impact is too large to make a zoning change reasonable at this time.

Todd Myers, 4309 South Linden, said he echoes many of the comments already expressed tonight. He believes they are being asked to have faith in what is going to happen. The zoning is going to be changed and they will be left wondering when it will happen, what will be done and who is going to do it. If they could say the proposal would be exactly like it appears at this point it might be acceptable but the problem they have is that they must have faith that is what they are going to do. He contacted Mr. MacPherson with questions and was told there are no specific answers at this time but they are still concerns. He is concerned about the traffic flow out of Twin Springs, flooding and how the water will flow, crime and police protection.

Mr. Wheeler said Commission does not know some of the things that will go here but the zoning process is to rezone the land so it can be developed. There have been no traffic studies but the process is that the applicant will submit a preliminary plan and when they submit the types of businesses a traffic study will be done. Mr. Wheeler asked about the flooding on Lone Pine. Keith Francis, Public Works, said the water always tops Lone Pine by Sequiota Park and there is a drainage project in the design phase. It is a major flooding issue which will require a major drainage project. He said the more impervious area you create the more potential there is for runoff. That is why they have the design guidelines; so the predevelopment flow rates will be maintained. Mr. Wheeler asked if the City could state, with some degree of confidence, that a project like this will be engineered to not increase the water flow on Lone Pine. Mr. Francis said that is why a lot of the discussion has been going on about the LID development.

Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Myers if that helped. Mr. Myers said it did and would like to address something else. He said regarding the traffic flow on Mentor, he would suggest that there is enough traffic on the road when Sequiota School is in session.

Mr. Alden suggested Mr. Myers really look at the proposed layout of the PD. Unlike the Woodbridge and Forrest Park neighborhood Twin Springs should not be worried about the traffic. He said the access on Mentor and Old Republic Road is terrible but if the northwest and southwest sections are developed the traffic on Mentor would be improved and they would get a new Republic Road thoroughfare and immediate access to US 65. Mr. Myers said he foresees the road that would go through would be a four-lane road. He does not want to worry about his children who are now able to ride their bikes in a quiet subdivision.

Tiffany Fry, 901 South National, said she is with the James River Basin Partnership. She said they have met with Mr. Butler several times sharing their concerns, goals and solutions. They are pleased with the changes that have been made relating to the protection of the environment and James River. They fully embrace and support the effort behind the LID and the use of innovative stormwater techniques. They are happy about the conservation easement and approve of the text in the PD and all other items listed under Other Requirements. She thanked staff and Mr. Butler for taking the time to look at this very important issue and recommend its approval.

Mr. McClelland said he has played golf all over and many of the courses are on or across a river. He said the bridge over the river may cause more problems than the earlier proposal of a golf course. Ms. Fry said when they looked at the golf course they considered nutrient runoff because the James River is listed as endangered four. There tends to be a lot of nutrient runoff. The turf grass on a golf course tends to have very short roots and that makes it practically impervious. She said she has to put faith in the process regarding the bridge and hope that between City staff and the Corps of Engineers specific things are put in place to protect the river. The biggest part is building the bridge.

Mr. Wheeler said he hopes the idea of an Audubon course makes its way to Council if that were to progress.

Mike Hill, 3750 East El Dorado, said they do not want to lose the Gasconade Bridge. He realizes that something is likely to happen in the area but he feels it needs to be done after the economy has recovered. He said after hearing how this proposal has changed since the previous meeting it seems like they are trying to make a deal. He said he really does not know why they need to rush to zone the property since they do not know which of the three options are going to happen.

Mr. Alden said Commission and staff look at the appropriateness of the zoning on a piece of property. He said this property should probably not remain agricultural and there are discussions on whether or not is should be single-family but where are all of those people going to come from without jobs. Also, the appropriateness, concepts and the Comprehensive Plan is considered to see how it should develop in the overall scheme of the city. Commission does not consider crime or schools. If Commission decides it is appropriate it goes to Council where they are the voice of the people. It may be determined that it is appropriate zoning but Council will decide if the concerns of the citizens outweigh the findings of Commission.

Ms. Hedrick said zoning gives the residents predictability and the developers get investors because of that predictability. She said it is reasonable for the developers to ask for this zoning change because they have worked on the project for 10 years and need the predictability.

Jack said Commission is going to take a 10 minute break and when they come back he would like Mr. Butler to address the issue of the Gasconade Bridge.

Mr. Butler said the Gasconade Bridge has three columns and two spans. The width of the outside two columns is adequate for the six laning of US 65. The location of the interchange was set by the traffic engineering study they had done to get permission for the interchange. They spent about $200,000 in working with the engineering firm that designed the 60 & 65 flyover interchange. They had to determine the proper spacing between the on and off ramps of the interchange and Battlefield without degrading any of the adjacent interchanges. There are engineering standards for gradient ramp length that go into place. The length of those ramps has been set by engineering standards and the speed of the traffic so cars can merge as appropriate. At the point that the Gasconade Bridge is they think the on and off ramp will not be fully merged and there would be eight lanes going through the bridge. To save the bridge they have to take the on and off ramps outside of those two outside columns. Outside those columns it slopes at an angle and they may have to take those lanes outside the columns to then merge them in. They would have to redo the engineering studies and rerun the models to make sure the on and off ramps do not get extended and create a problem with Battlefield and/or 65 Highway. MoDOT has said if they can figure out a way to do it the bridge can be kept. That is why they wrote it into the PD that an engineering study would have to be done to try to save it. The interchange has to meet certain criteria and the cost to replace the bridge with one that allows it is $3 million dollars and only about 1,000 cars a day on the bridge. It is an inordinate amount of money to spend on that bridge when there are other places in the community $3 million dollars can be spent.

Mr. Wheeler asked if the applicant would be funding the engineering study. Mr. Butler said yes.

Mr. McClelland said there have been comments that the on and off ramps are too close to Battlefield and the 60/65 interchange and it would create a dangerous situation. Mr. Butler said MoDOT approved everything that they did. Traffic simulations have been done and met all requirements of MoDOT regarding merge distances and speeds. There are different levels for the ratings on interchanges. Most of the interchanges around our area rate D and E, which means during peak traffic they are poor. None of these interchanges got to that level and they found that traffic on Highway 60 reduced when the interchange was included.

Mr. Wheeler asked for more information on the issue that 25% of the net lot space has to be pervious area that is not grass. Mr. Butler said they wanted to try to minimize runoff. They wanted to take 50% of the first half inch of any rain event and absorb it on site. They have 15% greenspace and an additional 10% would be pervious surface such as paver bricks or pervious concrete. That allows the water to be retained and get absorbed into the ground and reduces the runoff.

Matt O’Reilly, 2625 South Brandon, said he is here as a future neighbor and as a representative of the Ozarks Green Building Coalition. He said after meeting with everyone involved he feels they have made a lot of headway on the environmental issues. If Commission passes this case he feels he can say that any developer that would bring a development plan for this property would be building at a location with a strong foundation for environmental development. The LID principals that have been added to this PD are very progressive. The 25% pervious surface is an innovative way of forcing the developer to solve problems by using these stormwater management practices. By putting a green roof up, using cisterns, pervious pavers and other practices it creates a theme for the LID approach. He believes these practices should solve a lot of the problems the neighbors have with this development. Earlier a comment was made about police coverage of the development and he believes any development that would bring enough concerns over police would yield enough tax dollars to pay for it.

Mr. Wheeler asked if collecting roof drainage into cisterns to use for irrigation and flushing would be a way to meet some of the 25% requirement. Mr. O’Reilly said it is the net lot square footage, which is the area outside of the building, and some of these practices can exist on the building. They have a percentage offset where 1,000 square feet of green roof can be counted as 200 square feet of pervious surface. He said it is a grey area. Another thing they had discussed was a bioswale use of greenspace, which could count as 150% greenspace but he does not see that included. He said that would be a very innovative idea to put into the zoning but he believes that it could be approached by the developers when they bring in a plan. If Commission thinks it is practical to put a large development at this location then he believes the foundation is very strong from an environmental standpoint.

Rob Murray, 2225 South Blackman, is representing the developer. He said this LID is an exciting and has shaped the project. From a marketing standpoint you see green is the direction development is going and even though it may cost more it will help to market the project nationally. Consistently neighbors have spoken about why they need to have the zoning now. He recently spent a week at an international shopping convention and all the developers he met with are still interested in this area if there is property already zoned. The studies show that Springfield will support a lot more retail but to bring in a developer that is capable of handling a project of this size they have to know they have the entitlements for a certain amount of density and type of development. When the zoning is in place he can meet with the people to find a partner to develop the project when the market returns. Currently the property pays $3,000 a year in property tax, the cost of the infrastructure they will have to do will be about $60-65 million and construction costs, if built as the plan shows, is about $400 million dollars. For every 1,000 square feet of commercial development it represents 1.5 new jobs. The appraised value of the project, when completed, should be around $440 million dollars and would generate about $7.9 million in property tax. That property tax would help support things such as infrastructure, fire and libraries. If they assume the retail sales for this project is $275 a square foot, the Battlefield Mall has over $400 a square foot, they will generate $27 million in state, county and local sales tax of which $11 million will be local. Anyone who is investing $60 million dollars will not be building a development that you cannot be proud of.

With no further speakers, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Rognstad said Page 19, Item 3 states 10% of the net lot area must be impervious surface other than grass or planters. After talking to Mr. Butler they feel that would be difficult for the R-TH because typically you would have more grass yard. Mr. Butler and staff would agree to change that requirement to state all development other than R-TH. That would need to be added as part of the motion.

Mr. Shermer said he understands the neighborhood concerns and this large PD with all of its unanswered questions. If approved he hopes something does not jump out in the future that makes Commission regret they opened the gate. The neighbors can be assured that the final development plan will still have to be approved by Commission and Council and there will be a number of stop gap checks and public hearings along the way.

Mr. Lawhon said he feels there are three things he has to consider. Is it an appropriate use, does it comply with the general zoning requirements and any legal issues and are there protections for the city and neighbors. He said he believes it is an appropriate use of the land and based on what staff has said it appears to fully comply with zoning regulations and legal issues. There is an unspecific, vague outline but as it is phased in there are a lot of protections involved and that the developers will back before Commission. He thinks the protections are one of the major things that motivate him to be very much in favor of this PD.

Mr. Edwards said it is a big and bold project but he thinks this is a great time to be bold and get Springfield out of a rut. He believes it is appropriate to give the applicant the assurance that they can develop their investment freely if they follow the rules. He said he does not have any reason to believe they will not do this the right way and in looking at the meetings with the neighbors they have made a lot of movement considering where they started. Several have changed their position on the project and as it progresses he feels that spirit will continue. Overall, happy neighbors will help this project move through the process. He encouraged the neighbors to stay involved and he will be voting to approve this proposal.

Mr. McClelland said he feels Mr. Murray’s numbers are low and he feels $1 billion dollars will have changed hands by the time this project is complete. To pay for it you have to have taxation or bonds and the unemployed, retired and fixed income citizens cannot withstand additional taxation at this time. If you drive around you find building fronts that are empty and this will add to that dilemma. There are too many concerns not addressed and staff made the statement that the proposal is premature because many details are not known at this time.

Mr. Wheeler said he believes many are concerned about future tax issues but the tax burden will be borne by the developer and they will be paying for the infrastructure. He believes it will be naïve to think we will be creating these new jobs without hurting somewhere else. He believes there is the potential to bring in some new retail sales but some sales will just be shifted to this location. He does not believe the tax payers will incur any other tax burdens and feels it is likely this will trigger a TIF, an additional tax paid by people that purchase products and services in that area. He believes a TIF or CID is acceptable because if a business is willing to take a chance on losing business by charging more sales tax it is their business. He feels if you do not want to pay for the infrastructure costs do not shop there. Mr. Wheeler said he understands Mr. Beavers concern over the two rows of houses instead of four but he does not feel it needs to be changed.

Mr. Rognstad said the decision is not based on the financing and the TIF does not involve an increase in tax; that would be a CID or TDD. In a TIF you freeze the tax going to the taxing jurisdictions. The new tax is used by the developer to pay for the improvements.

Alden made the motion to approve Planned Development 330 adding in that 10% of the pervious non grass or planter areas described in the staff report is not required in any properties zoned R-TH. Shermer seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, Lawhon, McClelland, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Sutton.

5. Zoning Case Z-06-2009 Springfield City Council
(Various locations)

Mr. MacPherson said Council approved General Ordinance 5763 in June 2008 to amend the Zoning Ordinance to modify the requirements of the Airport Overlay Districts. The amendments clarified some of the language in the requirements, reduced the number of overlay districts from three to two and simplified the district boundaries. There are currently three Airport Overlay Districts. Two of the districts (AO-1 and AO-2) are based on noise contours developed from a noise study prepared in 1992. The amendment approved by Council in June 2008 results in only one district that requires noise reduction and the district boundaries are based on the centerline and endpoints of existing and proposed runways. The following land uses are prohibited in the AO-1 district, regardless of underlying zoning district, except as modified by the AO-3 district. Residential includes single-family (including mobile homes), two-family, town houses and multi-family residential, manufactured housing developments and rooming, boarding and lodging houses. Public uses include schools, colleges, hospitals, clinics, churches, auditoriums and concert halls, community centers, daycare centers, libraries and museums, group homes and day care homes. Recreational includes outdoor carnival or circus, playfield, stadiums and drive-in theaters. In the AO-3, no dwellings shall be permitted to be constructed other than single-family dwellings, including manufactured homes, each of which shall be on a lot or parcel of land of ten acres or more. Staff is recommending approval.

Mr. Alden asked if there were also height requirements. Mr. MacPherson said yes. Mr. Alden said he remembers reading that utilities could be taller than the buildings and he does not understand the logic. Ms. Yendes said our Zoning Ordinance does not apply to the utility issue but the FHA has requirements they would have to comply with.

No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed.

Alden made the motion to approve Zoning Case Z-06-2009. Hedrick seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, McClelland, Lawhon, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Sutton.

5a. Airport Overlay Amendments City of Springfield
(Various Locations)

This case is being heard in conjunction with Zoning Case Z-06-2009.

Mr. MacPherson said this case was tabled due to some confusion in the language over the Noise Level Reduction (NLR) standards. These proposed amendments will become a part of the Airport Overlay Districts. The allowed land uses shall meet minimum construction standards to achieve a minimum outdoor to indoor NLR of 30 decibels, which is applicable only to residential units.

No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed.

Alden made the motion to approve Zoning Text Amendment – Airport Overlay Amendments. Edwards seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, McClelland, Lawhon, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Sutton.

6. Vacation 736 City of Springfield
(Southeast corner of Seminole and National)

Mr. MacPherson said the City of Springfield has a project, the National and Seminole Intersection Improvement Project, at this location. Once the improvement project is completed the subject right-of-way will no longer be needed. The vacated right-of-way, after vacation, will go to the adjacent property owner and the City would retain all necessary easements and restrictions. The proposed vacation meets the approval criteria for vacating right-of-way and staff recommends approval.

Mr. Alden asked who receives the vacated portion. Mr. MacPherson said the property owners names are Russell and Gayla Harper.

No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed.

Shermer made the motion to approve Vacation 736. Hedrick seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, McClelland, Lawhon, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Sutton

7. Street Name Change 69 City of Springfield
(5800 block West Chestnut Expressway)

Mr. MacPherson said this application was initiated by City of Springfield and MoDOT to address emergency and directional concerns to the area. The name Deer Lake Avenue was suggested by a land owner adjacent to the new north/south connector and MoDOT suggested to the City that this name be considered. As with all changes of street names, staff posted the affected street and mailed letters to the two property owners of the affected street. Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations on this case will be sent to City Council for final approval. Approval of this of this street name change will improve emergency response time in this area. MoDot suggested this name to the City of Springfield as part of their meetings with the adjacent neighbors. Mr. MacPherson said Mike Hill, member of Deer Lake Golf Course, was present in support of this change but did not wish to stay because of the length of a previous public hearing. Staff recommends approval.

No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Wheeler asked if there was a discrepancy on the staff report that needed to be changed with the motion. Ms. Yendes said there was a comment in the staff report stating the Police Department does foresee an impact and it should state they do not foresee an impact.

Edwards made the motion to approve Street Name Change 69. McClelland seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, McClelland, Lawhon, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Sutton.

8. GI Text Amendments City of Springfield
(City Wide)

Mr. MacPherson said a recent proposal has initiated discussion and the proposed text amendments to the GI zoning district. The proposed amendment will modify the GI, Government and Institutional zoning district to allow additional permitted uses that are common in this district and increase the density of development. The following changes will be made to the Zoning Ordinance if the proposed amendment is approved. Commercial off-street parking lots and structures, multi-family dwellings, business schools, retail, personal service and restaurant establishments provided that the total floor area does not exceed ten percent of the total floor are permitted on the lot will be added to the Permitted Uses section of the GI district. The language under Conditional Uses will be modified to require a conditional use permit for retail, personal service and restaurant establishments that exceed ten percent of the total floor area permitted on the lot and taverns and cocktail lounge uses will be moved to the end of the section. The minimum open space requirements will be modified to require a conditional use permit for any development that proposes to reduce open space below twenty percent and not less than ten percent of the total lot area. The maximum impervious surface requirements will be modified to require a conditional use permit for development that proposes to increase impervious surfaces (which include main and accessory buildings or structures, parking, loading and other paved areas) above eighty percent and not exceeding ninety percent of the total lot area. The maximum building coverage (including accessory buildings) will be increased to ninety percent (currently eighty) percent. Lastly, the Off-Street Parking Requirements will be modified to exempt the GI zoning district from the off-street parking regulations. This amendment will allow multi-family uses in the GI district that could not be classified as dormitories. These multi-family uses will serve the GI district; however, it would not be required to exclusively serve the district. For example, an apartment complex could lease to someone that would not be enrolled or affiliated with the university that owns the property. The Multi-Family Matrix Location and Design Guidelines will not apply to this district because staff is encouraging increased density in and around these districts so adjacent densities will usually be at the same density or higher. Any GI district development adjacent to a residential district would continue to be required to provide a bufferyard with landscaping and possibly a fence and the height of the building could not exceed a thirty degree bulk plane. Commercial off-street parking structures and lots and business schools are compatible uses in the GI district that are being added to address the future needs of the district. These are uses that many governmental and institutional entities across the country are utilizing on their campuses. Staff is recommending that ten percent of retail, personal service, and restaurant establishments be permitted uses. This would promote mixed uses in the GI district which is a growing trend and reduces the traffic impact on surrounding streets and roadways. The proposed changes to the open space, impervious surface and maximum building coverage will increase buildable area and parking for GI uses to allow greater density on their sites. There is also a growing trend for public entities like universities to explore development opportunities and cost sharing with private developers on capital improvement projects. These partnerships facilitate development projects on the campuses, thus increasing density, and benefit private investors with investment projects without land acquisition expense. This amendment will provide more flexibility for these entities to utilize their existing property for future expansions of buildings, parking, etc. and decrease the demand for them to expand into adjacent neighborhoods. Any additional development would require the entity to address stormwater runoff and detention issues. It would also require them to submit information on their existing facilities and if increased, create additional capacity within their detention or stormwater conveyance systems. Staff is recommending that the GI district is exempted from the off-street parking requirements. This means that the off-street parking standards would not be applied to any development in the GI district. A government or institutional entity would determine its parking based on supply and demand. Staff believes that the GI district has such a wide array of uses that applying the standard parking requirements can actually restrict the growth and function of the particular use. In the case of universities for example, many students live in the dormitories and do not own a car. The off-street parking standards would restrict development of the university property when there is not a true demand for more off-street parking. Public Works Traffic Engineering and Building Development Services support the proposed changes to the off-street parking standards. Staff recommends approval.

Mr. Rognstad said staff is seeing a lot more partnerships between institutions and private developers. The way the GI district is structured it makes it difficult to have a partnership where the private developer is building facilities that would serve the GI use.

Mr. Shermer said a public library would be GI so what would happen to the concept of a nonconforming use since there is at least one library in Springfield in a residential area. Mr. Rognstad said GI has been used primarily for larger campuses. Libraries are permitted in the residential districts and staff would not go back and zone a library GI. Smaller facilities are left as residential since they are permitted in that district. Mr. Shermer asked if they could not put a restaurant or retail in a library that was in a residential area. Mr. Rognstad said it would not necessarily allow a commercial use but you get into a grey area of uses that are customarily accessory to the primary use; such as a coffee shop in a library or a daycare for those that work at a business. Staff seems to be dealing with those grey areas more and more.

Mr. Edwards asked why stormwater requirements are being reduced. Mr. Rognstad said that is only being done with a use permit. The reasoning is because we typically deal with campuses but the way the ordinance is written you have to deal with it on a lot by lot basis meaning every lot would have 20% open space. Staff suggests it be reduced to 10% and then if all of the stormwater was concentrated in one area you could have more intense development in some areas. By doing it with a use permit you can accomplish the same thing and give them flexibility in planning the campuses. Mr. Edwards said if you are looking mostly at center city the stormwater is already a problem and did staff feel this would add to the problem. Mr. Rognstad said if there is new development you have to address the stormwater whether it is 10, 15 or 20 percent open space.

Mr. Wheeler asked if GI districts currently have parking requirements. Mr. Rognstad said yes and it is based on the type of use. Mr. Wheeler asked if this change would take out all parking requirements for the institutions. Mr. Rognstad said yes; the institutions would decide how much parking they needed. Mr. Wheeler said he feels a lot of institutions have been poor neighbors when it comes to parking and he is not inclined to give them free reign. Mr. Rognstad said there is a debate across the country and some communities have gotten rid of parking requirements altogether. The question is do you regulate it or let the market take care of it. Often there are cases where a business does not need as much parking because of their type of use but because of the standards they are required to put in the parking. An example would be restaurants where there is a wide variation in the amounts of customers drawn to a location. If you let the market decide people should be paying for public parking and meters are installed on streets. Staff feels the GI district is one place to try that theory. Mr. Wheeler said some institutions do not have concerns over attracting customers as much as others do.

No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed.

Lawhon made the motion to approve Zoning Text Amendment – GI Text Amendment. Alden seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, Lawhon, McClelland; NAYS: Wheeler, Edwards; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Sutton.

OTHER BUSINESS:

ANY OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMISSION JURISDICTION:

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:35 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