Minutes for the Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission


DATE:  September 1, 2011
TIME:   6:30 pm

 

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: Shelby Lawhon (Chair), Matt Edwards (Vice Chair), Jay McClelland, Phil Young, Thomas Baird, IV, and King Coltrin, Gloria Roling; Thomas Rykowski, City Attorney; Ralph Rognstad, Director of Planning and Development; Mike MacPherson, Senior Planner; Chris Straw, Director, Building Development Services; Sandy Goddard, Administrative Assistant; Olivia Hough, Senior City Planner;  ABSENT: Jason Ray

 

ROLL CALL:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the August 18, 2011 Planning and Zoning Commission were approved unanimously.
   
COMMUNICATIONS: 

Mr. MacPherson states that Staff is recommending and requesting under the Hearings section, Item Number three (3) Temporary Vendors Amendments, that the item be tabled indefinitely. There have been responses from the Development Community and Staff feels the need to respond to those issues before a presentation is made to Commission.

Mr. Baird made a motion to Table Indefinitely, item three (3), the Temporary Vendors Amendment. Mr. Edwards seconded. Motion carried as follows: AYES:  Lawhon, Edwards, McClelland, Young, Baird and Coltrin. NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None. ABSENT:  Roling and Ray.

 

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.)

 

Consent Items:

  1. Relinquish Easement 767 Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust
    (Glenstone S, 1300 block east side)
            
    Mr. Edwards motioned to approve Relinquish Easement 767. Mr. Coltrin seconded. Motion carried as follow: AYES:  Lawhon, Edwards, McClelland, Young, Baird and Coltrin. NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None. ABSENT:  Roling and Ray.
    Hearings:

  Zoning Text Amendments:

  1. Bulk Plane in Non-Residential Springfield City Council
    (City-Wide)

Mr. MacPherson introduces the case. The purpose of the request is to amend the Springfield Zoning Ordinance and the various districts it would impact would include Office Districts, Government and Institutional Districts, Limited Business Districts, General Retail Districts, Highway Commercial Districts and Commercial Services District to change the maximum height requirements, more specifically the bulk plane restriction adjacent to residential districts.

To summarize, there are different variables in each zoning district. Mr. MacPherson states he will review the bulk plane. When a residential district, any shape or form, under today’s zoning ordinance exists next to an office district, so a residential district adjacent to an office district, there is a requirement of a forty-five (45) degree bulk plane. What that means is from the district boundary line of the residential district, for every foot the building is proposed to go up in height, it would be one (1) foot away from the set-back line to accomplish that. So it is a one (1) to one (1) relationship, one (1) foot out for one (1) foot up. In some of the other districts that are more intense, such as General Retail, Government Institutional Districts, Limited Business Districts, Highway Commercial and Commercial Services District, that relationship, or bulk plane, goes from a forty-five (45) degree bulk plane to a thirty (30) degree bulk plane. That relationship then, is for every foot and a half (1 ½) away from the property line, the building can go up one foot in height.

Currently the Zoning Ordinance in these restrictions for the bulk plane applies to all the residential districts. However if you consider anything beyond the Residential Single-Family, and the Residential Townhouse which has height limitations of thirty-five (35) feet, it is possible and an opportunity exists in the R-LD, Low Density Multi-Family, R-MD, Medium Density Multi-Family and R-HD, High Density Multi-Family Residential districts for the actual building that would be on those zoning districts to be equal to or higher than the one that might be proposed on the Commercial District. For example in a Residential Medium density district, the height restriction is thirty-five (35) feet, but for every two (2) feet from the property line you can have one (1) foot of building height up to seventy-five (75) feet, and once that seventy-five (75) feet is achieved the height is unrestricted. It is conceivable then, that in a Residential District, Multi-family it could exceed the height of some of the requirements.

So what this amendment is proposing is that the bulk plane would then be required for Residential Single-Family Districts and Residential Townhouse Districts and not be applicable, it would eliminate Residential Low Density, Medium Density and High Density because it is not necessary. What brought this to case, there currently is an application on file where there is a commercial property, and it happens to be a multi-story hotel; this is not the Republic Road case, it is another case, where the hotel is multi-story and located adjacent to a Multi-Family District, and the bulk plane doesn’t make sense. That is why Staff is asking for the amendment.

Mr. Lawhon opens the public hearing.

There being no other speakers, Mr. Lawhon closes the public hearing.

Mr. Young motioned to approve the Bulk Plane Amendment. Mr. Baird seconded. Motion carried as follow: AYES:  Lawhon, Edwards, McClelland, Young, Baird and Coltrin. NAYS:  None.  ABSTAIN:  None. ABSENT:  Roling and Ray.

  1. Sign Amendments Springfield City Council
    (City Wide)

Mr. MacPherson introduces Chris Straw, Director of Building Development Services, who will report on the case.

Mr. Straw comments that what is being brought forward tonight are some amendments to the current sign ordinance. In 2008, a task force was appointed, who worked for more than a year trying to resolve numerous issues regarding the sign ordinances. Mr. Straw states that what is being presenting does not solve all the problems or correct all the issues. In going through all the data and information presented, Staff felt this was what could be presented at this time, feeling confident with regard to what the intent was. There is an item in the report, stating that there was nothing to begin with, and we still have nothing in the ordinance, so this is where we will start; we will continue from there and that point will be addressed in a moment.

In addition to that, in 2012 a new task force will be formed to again study the Sign Ordinance, but focus more on those issues of a community wide, philosophical element that need to be addressed; which way does the community want to go. What is being brought forth tonight are elements that Staff felt needed to be, and could be addressed quite easily by amendments to what we have currently.

The first item, referring to the overhead projector display, is showing an on-premise sign that deals with a strip center. I think everyone is aware of the location shown. The current ordinance reads that an on-premise sign of this nature, detached, space has to be provided for the tenants in order to advertise and to put their name on the sign. Based on the way the ordinance is written it also states that if a tenant does not want to advertise on the sign, they sign an agreement stating that fact. So each time a new tenant comes in, you begin the whole process again.  There is nothing in the ordinance that says how much space you have to provide, so the first business that gets there takes all but maybe three (3) square feet, and everyone else gets what is left. What is being proposing is to strike that from the ordinance, thereby making it a business decision on the part of the developer, who is most usually the owner of the strip center. He is the one that has control, and if it is his desire to turn the sign over to one tenant while everyone else has to use wall signs that is, in our opinion, a developing community decision, not ours.

Mr. Lawhon asked if that language is contained in the proposed amendment.

Mr. Straw commented yes, that is the language, adding that it was removed. The next item then deals with Center City Zoning, and an unusual situation, in that when you have a premise, and the premise is usually defined by the property lines, you have either multiple buildings, or in some cases, single buildings. You have situations where you have a single building, but you have multiple properties, or tenants, located on that premise. What has been encountered is under the premise rule you are allowed to have a detached sign, or a projecting sign. The first person that gets to the property in Center City, whose building is built to the property line, gets the projected sign, and no one else, so they have to use wall signs. It has created some problems for the City. When you go to the other end of some of the streets, each one of the building is its own legal piece of property, so here are four (4) or five (5) buildings that have their own projecting signs. What is being proposed, with the new language, would allow businesses to have a projecting sign, not to exceed ten (10) square feet while meeting the other provisions as required; minimum clearance shall be ten (10) feet above the height level of the sidewalk, which is the current language we have. Mr. Straw presented a picture of a sign, as an example, to show the approximate dimensions of the ten (10) square feet provision. They felt the ten (10) was fairly uniform to what is being used on the public right of way down town.

The next item to be addressed is Business Signs located in non-business areas; Residential zoned districts that have schools and churches, things of this nature located in the area. He used a picture as an example stating that the current language reads that you cannot exceed one hundred (100) square feet, fifty (50) square feet, or twenty-five (25) square feet above street grade. That is the current criteria. What is being proposed is changing that to the following:  it is to be based off the major thoroughfare, so what you would have is, in the location where you have a collector type street or local street, it would be one hundred (100) square feet. It is going to be raised from fifty (50) to one hundred (100) square feet. When you get to a secondary arterial street, we are going to allow two hundred (200) square feet, and in a primary arterial, two hundred fifty (250) square feet.  He gave an example of East Battlefield as a primary arterial and other areas of the city as examples. What is proposed when we have that situation is to allow them to have that two hundred fifty (250) square foot sign, because they lay parallel to those primary roads, such as Highway 65 and streets of that nature.

Mr. Straw then moved on to Legal non-Conforming Signs.  As much as we try and would like to get rid of all the legal non-conforming signs, we do not foresee that happening, because you are allowed to maintain them, so if you have a sign that was built in the 1930’s and that is what it looks like and you maintain it, it will continue to remain that type of sign. What we are proposing is the following: a legal non-conforming sign may be altered as follows, and when we say altered, that means we can structurally alter the sign. I could take a sign and put some automatic changeable copy on it. I could modernize it. But the language needs to be very clear (Staff Report, page 27, row 930, numbers one, two and three). When we have multiple signs on a premise, and I may not have control over both of the signs, the other guy will not move his, I’m not going to move mine, we now have a stalemate. What we are trying to clarify, in order to give the person the ability to change or modify the non-conforming sign, we are going to let you do it, but, what you will have to do is reduce the effective area of the sign to seventy-five (75) percent of the allowable effective area of a conforming sign.  This will increase the number of messages you can have on the sign, if is changeable copy or modernized. That is the legal non-conforming language we would propose.

Lastly, moving to Automatic Changeable Copy; currently, the only language we have to deal with this is no flashing lights, no movement and that is it, there is no more detail. Technology is moving more quickly than we can write the ordinance. We looked at various cities, and looked at what they had, and they were all over the spectrum, with regard to various elements. We established the criteria, which we are bringing forth tonight (Staff Report, page 31, row 1413, Section 5-1412, A.; B., 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). This is a starting place, the Task Force will be assembled at the beginning of the year and if we need to address this, we can study this and come back with greater detail. He comments that he has had a few phone calls with regard to medical issues with flashing. A woman states that the strobe effect sends her child into a mental state, adding that he will be following up with these concerns. The focus is to minimize distraction. The LED technology uses an automatic control to regulate the brightness level to the set prescribed foot candle level. When there is a mal-function, it will be disconnected and or repaired within forty-eight (48) hours. Those are the major elements with regard to the ordinances that are being proposed tonight. There are many more to come.

Mr. McClelland asked if signs that currently do not comply with the amendment, if they will be grandfathered or will they be required to change.

Mr. Straw said they would be grandfathered.

Mr. Lawhon asked if you have a sign and did not want to do anything with the sign it would not be affected by the changes in the ordinance, only if a modification is desired, would the requirements be enforced.

Mr. Straw said that is correct; the issue of the automatic changeable copy is something that the next task force will be looking at.

Mr. Young asked what the City’s process is for a non-conforming sign that is in disrepair.

Mr. Straw stated that you can paint it, but you cannot do any structural alterations to the sign. It is very restrictive. You have to replace or repair with like materials, and some of the materials are no longer available. It makes it difficult to take a legal non-conforming sign and upgrade it, update it, so it fits current requirements.

Mr. Young asked if a sign was in violation, what the process would be to correct the violation.

Mr. Straw stated that if it can be established that the sign is abandoned, there can be an administrative hearing process and it can be removed. There is a year time limit involved.

Mr. Coltrin asked if the lumination levels of these signs are something the City and the sign companies have come to an agreement on, or is there a standard level that they work from.

Mr. Straw stated the information was taken from manufactures literature as a standard approach to it, and was used in several of the cities that were studied. It is subject to adjustment.

Mr. Lawhon commented that he would like to jump ahead to 2012, because there will be a task force formed, asking what the scope or focus would be, or was it too early to comment on it.

Mr. Straw commented that one of the biggest issues will be what Citizens, Developers and Sign Companies want the City of Springfield to look like in the future. The Task Force will examine the issues, gain direction from the Community and determine where the city wants to be. He stated that the text will be rewritten, not changing anything from what is in the ordinance now, but pulling it together so that when there is an application for a sign, there will be a document that will be provided that has everything dealing with Signs.

Mr. Lawhon asked if there will be a variety of stake holders involved in the task force.

Mr. Straw said yes.

Mr. Lawhon asked since the Task Force will be formed in January, why Commission is looking at this issue tonight.

Mr. Straw stated Staff felt it was appropriate to bring these changes forward, based on the quantity of work the former Task Force did for that year. There were positive gains from it; what has been presented tonight are issues that are not as confrontational as some of the larger issues to date. There are other points that were not reviewed in the ordinance that need to be cleaned up. For example, currently, to have a sign that states “now hiring,” is illegal, in the City of Springfield. We added language to establish size, but now you can do that at this time. Those are the types of things we have cleaned up to help the developing community.

Mr. Lawhon opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ron Barber, Payne Sign Company, 501 North National Avenue, commented he does not have an issue with the changes except for the electronic displays and the steady eight (8) second delay. I was actually on that task force, and it’s been over a year and half, and this is the first thing that has come out of it. We had several discussions about the electronic displays, and the end result was we tied a lot of information to the major thoroughfare, and to the zoning. Sometimes that creates regulations instead of cleaning it up. My biggest point today is the eight second (8) delay, which is real good for billboards; that is what the State regulations for billboards are at this time. They are generally large displays, but when you come to on premise signs, they can be large, but generally are smaller displays, and you cannot get a message completed on the sign that you can see in eight (8) seconds. For example, the City and State and Public Works sets these signs out for information if a road is closed; I saw one on North Kansas yesterday that had two message on it that changed every three and a half seconds (3 ½) seconds; there is one lane on North Kansas over the Via-duct, and you could not see that in eight (8) seconds normally. There has been some discussion, and in my personal opinion, when there is  flashing and video, I see the need for regulations, but the technology available will allow you to scroll something across it, roll it up, fade it in or fade it out and is not intrusive, in our opinion, but should be allowed in some form. People are spending thousands of dollars for this technology and basically when you do eight (8) seconds the whole time; you are wasting half the product you have spent money on. That is the major point of contention, the hold time taking away all movement. Flashing is, in some places, inappropriate.

Mr. Baird asked Mr. Barber about his earlier comment  regarding a state standard, in reference to the eight (8) second hold time; is there an industry standard as far as an on premise display.

Mr. Barber stated not by our industry, it is generally regulated by individual cities and each city is different. Some are dependent on the zoning classification, whether it is commercial or residential, it is tied to that.

Mr. Baird restated Mr. Barber’s premise, that he feels there should not be any type of time restriction on the displays.

Mr. Barber stated they would like to see no time limit, but that is an issue to discuss if there is a requirement for a set time. You can bring a message up without flashing it on and off every one half ½ second or one (1) second, and it can depend on the location. If it is an enclosed area, in the center city, it is more inappropriate than if you are on a major thoroughfare.

Mr. Young asked Mr. Barber if he sees an increase in the community with developers wanting that type of sign instead of the old style stationary sign.

Mr. Barber stated that they are seeing more of this, that this type of sign is a big part of their sales going forward.

Mr. Mark Wessell, Springfield Sign and Neon, 2531 N. Patterson, stated he has been in business in Springfield for twenty years and proud to be a member of the community. I think some of the changes put forth here are fairly far reaching, and I think if all this were considered a little bit, I think we could find quite a few issues to take with it. Some of the definitions are not well defined, the brightness, the flashing, a lot of these definitions doesn’t apply to this modern technology. With respect to the modern technology, if we are to dumb this down and not take advantage of it, I think it hurts the commercial viability of this town, its customers and businesses. Issues like “now hiring,” are going to be different than if you can utilize this new technology, so putting a small sign out “now hiring,” is a moot point if you can’t bring customers into your business. I have had forty-eight (48) hours to digest this, so I don’t feel like I am well prepared to speak out, which I will try to do a little bit. As this moves forward, hopefully it can reverse a little bit, and take a breath of fresh air. The brightness definitions are really technically incorrect, because those need to be dealt with respect to size and distance. You can’t just set up a distance. He uses an example of flashlight, if you move it to your eye, it would be extremely bright, but if I moved it to the back of the room it is the same brightness coming out of the bulb, but it is not as bright.

The size of the sign and the distance is how you would, typically, measure that brightness. To just say all signs two hundred fifty (250) square feet, I guarantee I could over drive a small sign two hundred fifty (250) feet and make it brighter than what anyone would intend to have. I think this industry has got to work on some of Mr. Straw’s concerns such as the flashing and strobing, that kind of stuff, I don’t believe there would be a sign company here that states we should be doing that. The fact that things shift and move, is what the technology is all about. To do it properly is something that needs to be looked at, discussed, regulated with this task force and put forth with some kind of tool to communicate and I think that is definitions. Flashing in here, to me, is not well defined, usually that is along the lines of strobing is total darkness to total brightness, that’s something that goes boom, and the only reason to do that is get noticed. To me, it is not conducive to good business to issues that we need to deal with in the City, but to put a message up and to bring it in and out, scroll it in and out, have an animation is part of this technology. It would be similar to not using cell phones or not using computers because type writers are just fine. I believe we have to address this technology, and as far as a standard across the towns, we have been a national company for many years, there aren’t standards. I think there is a developing consensus, but I think we all have to worry about bias; sign companies shouldn’t drive it, the city shouldn’t drive it, citizens shouldn’t drive it, manufactures of the displays shouldn’t drive it, all of us together should be driving it. I think that is what we lose sight of sometimes, and that is a lot of work. The written word is tough to interpret and tough to lay down and I think that is what we all have to work on.

Mr. Baird said that he does not have a question, but a comment for Mr. Wessell and Mr. Barber and also the ladies and gentlemen in the back of the room. We really appreciate you being here and speaking to this, often times we see text amendments but we don’t get a lot of comment. We read them and try to make the best decisions, but many times, we don’t have comments from the business community or the citizens so we appreciate your time here.

Mr. McClelland asked Mr. Wessell if he would say that these amendments are an improvement or not.

Mr. Wessell stated there are some things improving here like the multi-tenants stuff, Center City stuff, and I know Chris has to deal with that because we have had to deal with it with our customers; what I have seen with our codes over twenty (20) some odd years, is none of them are perfect and I think the increment of change should be a little smaller here, I think some of this is striking a lot, changing a lot and it bothers me. I have seen codes that have been clarified over years and years and can get to be quite strong. The technology and adapting to it is going to take some time and everyone has to understand it. You have to balance the good and bad, but I think to just shut it down and say it’s bad and your can’t have it or to dumb it down to the eight (8) seconds really takes away  the need for that sign. We have old manual changeable copy boards, not that I would attempt to try and change a message to eight (8) seconds, but it’s fairly static and those are very cheap and work just fine. To me the ordinance is far reaching and as I have said, I have had only forty-eight (48) hours to look at this and I didn’t comment about a lot of it.

Mr. McClelland asked if the amendment was to be passed this evening, would it be something you can live with until the new group comes in with more and better information.

Mr. Wessell said personally no.

Mr. Lawhon closed the public hearing.

Mr. Hansen commented that Mr. Wessell said he had only forty-eight (48) hours to review the information and hasn’t figured it out and he has had more than twice that long and doesn’t have a full comprehension of it either. He feels that there are enough changes on the amendment that he is hesitant to vote for it because he is uncertain some parts aren’t too restrictive. As far as the new technology, the opportunity for attractive signs are always evolving, I was thinking back over the neon signs, particularly Sky Ranch, not certain anyone remembers that on College Street. There were really creative moving neon signs that were a hit at the time, and as time went on they became garish and we got away from it. These things are always evolving and I don’t think any of it is going to be permanent technology for very long. Those are the two sides of me that arguing on this, and ultimately, until I understand this better, I am going to vote against this.

Mr. Young stated he has many thoughts about the signs, but first wants to say, that the way it reads he doesn’t see it as too restrictive. I think some of the stuff is good, and right now I propose to vote for it. I do want to comment about signs in general, and the technology that was brought up in previous discussion from Mr. Wessell, how we need to embrace it and it is the wave of the future. I think we need to consider if that is true, just because the technology is there, just because we can do it, do we want that for our city. We drive up and down these street every single day, not that we are going to get to this look, but consider Las Vegas. It is the city of lights, and that is a stretch for comparison, but this is our built environment, and being someone who studies the build environment every day, signs, for me detract from the buildings, the streets. For me, technology isn’t always a good thing. I just went to St. Genevieve, a few weeks back. It is the oldest town in Missouri and it was so cool, as there were not a lot of signs, and that is something that I do look at because it is what I do. It was nice to see the old style signs; there wasn’t neon or LED everywhere and it was an inviting community, and has survived forever. Do we need technology to have a business show that it needs help or do we need all this flashy stuff; I don’t think so. I am not against technology, but we need to focus and think about where it is good and for me, I don’t necessarily see it as good in a sign. Where it is at right now for me is alright, but for the future for this new task force, I hope they really consider the idea of technology and where it goes.

Mr. Lawhon stated he has been on the Planning and Zoning Commission for four (4) years and directed his question to Mr. Rognstad. The sign issue has been around for four (4) years, in one way or another. There has been this task force or that task force and a lot of the same issues that we have discussed tonight have been talked about before, so how long would you say that signs have been an issue for the City of Springfield; as long as the City of Springfield has been here.

Mr. Rognstad stated that he came to Springfield twenty-three year ago and at that time, had just rewritten the ordinance because of an issue with the yellow portable signs in the area commenting that it was written by Committee and you know what comes out of Committee at times. There were concerns about it from the day it was adopted, particularly the part about it begin confusing and it has been a struggle the whole time about trying to determine exactly what you are permitted to do. That was part of what we were trying to clean up and it is a difficult issue because it goes back to what Mr. Young was talking about. There is no right answer. It is the community answer. What do you want to have? I have been in communities like St. Genevieve where they are very restrictive on signs and part of that is the historic nature of the city and they want to preserve that history. Some places won’t allow businesses to have large signs, the flashing lights, and movement that go along with that. We selected the eight (8) seconds because that is what the State uses. There are communities that have longer times that have to be still imagery and you have shorter times, so there is no magic on that. From a technical standpoint, our concern is really a safety concern. If you go back thirty (30) or forty (40) years, and there wasn’t as much traffic and as much light on the streets, but now we use all kinds of things for traffic control, with pedestrian signs and its telling you not to walk, that the lights are getting ready to change and you need to get across to avoid getting run over and there seems to be lights everywhere. With all the changeable copy, you are just adding to the confusion, and again there is no scientific fact that eight (8) seconds is the best, it’s what the community thinks and how much you can allow.

Mr. McClelland stated that there are some things in life where the grandfather issue is applicable, but in this sign issue I don’t think grandfathering is appropriate. For me, when I don’t understand something really well; I read this thing and after I was done, I wasn’t sure what I read much like Mr. Hansen.  I have to defer to an expert and I appreciate Mr. Wessell’s input and I will be voting no.

Mr. Baird stated that given the fact that in early 2012 there will be a task force assigned to this, he would  be voting no as well.

Mr. Hansen motioned to approve Zoning Text Amendment, Signs. Mr. Young seconded. The motion failed as follows:  Ayes:  Roling and Young.  Nays:  Lawhon, Edwards, Coltrin, Hansen, McClelland, and Baird.  Abstain:  None.  Absent:  Ray.

Mr. Lawhon addressed Mr. Straw, stating that they are aware that he has put a lot of time, energy, and effort into this, but this in no way diminishes recognition of what has been done, and that it is greatly appreciated by Commission.

REPORTS:

  1. West Meadows Grant Implementation for Environmental Remediation
    (Olivia Hough, Senior City Planner)

Mr. MacPherson introduced Olivia Hough, who is the Brownfield Coordinator and Senior Planner.

Ms. Hough stated she appreciates the opportunity to come with an update regarding the West Meadows Project.  She comments that she and other Staff have appeared before Commission over the years talking about the Jordan Valley Project and that Commission voted to adopt the Jordan Valley Concept Plan in 2010 and this is one step toward implementation of the West Meadows, the Environmental Clean-Up. Ms. Hough gives a brief background report for anyone who is new or needs a refresher. She gives a photo tour of the project with an update on where they are now and where the project it is going.

  1. Addition of Missouri’s Hazardous Waste Sites as a GIS Layer
    (Michael MacPherson, Principal City Planner)

Mr. Lawhon asked Mr. MacPherson for a definition of what a GIS Layer means.

Mr. MacPherson explained to Commission what the GIS mapping system is, and reviewed the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Beta testing hazardous waste Web-site and the accompanying memorandum information. He lets the Commission know that the vast majority of communities in Missouri do not have the system that the City of Springfield uses on a regular basis. The GIS system for the City of Springfield is superior to that of the State of Missouri. He gives a brief visual tour of how the GIS system operates.

Mr. Lawhon thanked Mr. MacPherson for the presentation and asked about the memo Commission received regarding the Republic Road case, commending Mr. MacPherson for writing it, and that it was very well written. Mr. Lawhon states that he is aware that Mr. MacPherson was not the sole author of the memo and others made input to it, but was impressed and thought it was very well written and a very effective, objective way to deal with some of the issues that were addressed by that, stating that he was very glad the memo was sent.

Mr. MacPherson stated that he would be very remiss if he attempted to take credit for the memo; there was a considerable Staff effort from Development Review, from Mr. Rognstad, and from Public Works Staff and is very appreciative of the comment. One of the things that we have tried to do in this collaborative development philosophy is to share information, adding that not only was it shared with Commission but the development applicants and the neighborhood.

Mr. Rognstad asked if Commission would review a video on the IDEA Commons that the Public Information Office prepared. He let Commission know that it is on the City’s Web-site.

Mr. Lawhon comments that he liked the video, it was concise, succinct; it laid out its purpose and it defined what IDEA meant and gave some good examples.

ANY OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMISSION JURISDICTION

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:18 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