Minutes for the Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Date: September 30, 2010
Time: 6:30 P.M.

The regular meeting and public hearing of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on the above date and time in City Council Chambers, third floor of City Hall with the following members and personnel in attendance: Jack Wheeler, Chair; Shelby Lawhon, Vice Chair; Thomas Baird, IV; Gloria Roling; Phil Young; Jay McClelland; King Coltrin; Mike MacPherson, Principal Planner, Planning and Development; Nancy Yendes, Assistant City Attorney; Matt Schaefer, Senior Planner, Planning and Developoment; Ralph Rognstad, Jr., Director, Planning and Development; Cody Marshall, Public Works; ABSENT: Matthew Edwards; Jim Hansen.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:          

The minutes of the September 2, 2010, meeting were approved unanimously.

COMMUNICATIONS:

Mr. MacPherson introduced Cody Marshall, from the Public Works department, who was available to answer questions about storm water.

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 753                                   NJS-Missouri Metro, LLC
    (3218 N. Glenstone)

 2.  Relinquish Easement 754                                    Marilyn Keltner Trust
     (335 & 341 S. Mumford)


 3.  Relinquish Easement 755                                    Griswald Enterprises, LLC
     (5300 block S. Michigan)

Lawhon made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Young seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows:  AYES: Wheeler, Roling, Baird, Coltrin, Young, McClelland, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Hansen, Edwards.


HEARINGS: 

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT:

4.     PD 308, final develoopment plan                                               Hickory Investments, LLC
       (3810 E. Cherry)

Mr. MacPherson said that PD 308 was approved by City Council in January 2007. He read the following excerpt from the City’s staff report:

If the Administrative Review Committee shall find that the Final Development Plan lacks substantial conformity to the Preliminary Development Plan, but merits approval notwithstanding such lack of conformity, it shall transmit such plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission together with its recommendation that the Final Development Plan be approved.

Mr. MacPherson read the following passages from the Staff Comments portion of the staff report:

  1. Planned Development 308 was approved by City Council in January of 2007. It allows the Final Development Plan (FDP) to be approved by the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) provided it is in substantial conformance with the approved Planned Development ordinance. The proposed Final Development Plan is not in substantial conformance to the requirements of the approved Planned Development ordinance and therefore cannot be approved administratively. As stated above, Section 4-2509.D. of the Zoning Ordinance permits the Administrative Review Committee to forward a final development plan that lacks substantial conformance to the approved planned development ordinance but merits approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review. If the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the final development plan lacks substantial conformity to the planned development but merits approval, it shall transmit the recommendation to City Council for approval. 
  2. The Administrative Review Committee has reviewed the proposed Final Development Plan and finds that the plan merits approval despite its lack of conformity. The adjacent property owners to the west and southwest who are to benefit from the fence have asked that it not be constructed along their property lines (see Exhibit 3 for letters from property owners). There are several existing mature trees along the property line the adjacent owners would like to preserve. In addition ... rather than having a fence constructed near their residences [a] minimum twenty-five foot wide bufferyard with plantings is required along the east, west and south property lines. The applicant is proposing additional plantings along the west and south property lines to provide additional screening in those areas in lieu of the fence. The applicant is proposing to provide 19 understory trees and 58 shrubs along the western property line (10 and 39 are required, respectively). The applicant is also proposing to provide 19 understory trees and 49 shrubs along the southern property line (9 and 36 are required, respectively). The required masonry fence is existing along the east property line and along the eastern 288 feet of the southern property line and will remain in those areas.
  3. 3.  Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council approved a Final Development Plan in June 2008 to permit a secondary access to the property from Cherry Street for emergency access. All other requirements of Planned Development 308 have been met with this final development plan.

 

Mr. MacPherson said that staff was recommending approval of the request based on the following findings, which are spelled out in the staff report:

1.    The final development plan lacks substantial conformity to the Planned Development Ordinance approved by City Council but merits approval notwithstanding such lack of conformity.

2.    The property owners adjacent to the subject property have requested the fence along the property line not be constructed as required by the approved Planned Development Ordinance. 

3.    The applicant is proposing additional plantings within the bufferyard to provide some screening between the properties and visually enhance the development.

Mr. McClelland asked what the “lack of conformity” was. Mr. MacPherson said it was the fact that there would not be a fence constructed on “the south and the west side.”

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing.

(At some time during the following discussion, Mr. Coltrin left the meeting.)

Alan Bates, 433 W. Walnut, said that it was “the neighbors’ idea” to get rid of the fence. He said it would be desirable to leave some trees where the fence would otherwise go. He said, “We’re planning on building several three-plex units in the next year.” 

Mr. McClelland asked whether an “ice plant” would survive in southern Missouri. Mr. Bates said he was not knowledgeable about that particular plant.

There being no other speakers, Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing.

Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Lawhon said they would be pleased to recommend a buffer consisting of trees and shrubs rather than a fence.  

McClelland made a motion to approve the revised final development plan for Planned Development 308. Young seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Young, Roling, Baird, McClelland, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Hansen, Edwards.

(After the vote, Mr. Coltrin rejoined the Commission meeting.)

USE PERMIT:

5.    Use Permit 393                                                       Bridges for Youth, Inc.
      (1230 W. Madison)

Mr. MacPherson said that the proposal would allow the adaptive reuse of a former commercial building, and he read the following comments from the City’s staff report:

  1. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit a non-profit community center within an R-SF, Single Family Residential District. The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to allow the existing structure to be used for a Bridges for Youth community facility. City Council approved an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow non-profit community centers as a conditional use in all residential districts in July 2010. The applicant intends on renovating the existing building near McGregor Elementary School to provide after-school services to the children. Approval of this application will allow this facility to locate within the neighborhood and community that it serves and will allow for infill and productive use of the existing structure.  
  2. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s request for a Conditional Use Permit and has determined that it satisfies the standards for Conditional Use Permits outlined in Section 3-3310 of the Zoning Ordinance. 

Mr. MacPherson said that staff was recommending approval, and he read the following findings from the staff report:

  1. Approval will provide opportunities for the productive use of the existing structure which will improve the appearance of the property.
  2. This application meets the approval standards for a Conditional Use Permit and is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing.

Bryan Ragsdale, 7428 E. FR 156, Rogersville, said he was representing Bridges for Youth, the applicant. He said the applicant would be bringing “the building to code” and would “fully comply with the suggestions here with the report.” Ms. Rolling said she was in favor of the proposal.  

There being no other speakers, Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing.

Mr. Lawhon said he was in favor of the proposal. Mr. Wheeler said he was in favor of the proposal and appreciated the work by city staff on this and similar projects.
Young made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit #393. Rolling seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Baird, Young, Roling, McClelland, Coltrin, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Edwards, Hansen.

PRELIMINARY PLAT:

6.    Partnership Industrial Center West, phase 13                                                        City of Springfield
      (5500 W. Division)

Mr. MacPherson said that the applicant was the Springfield Business and Development Corporation. This organization, he said, was trying to attract industry and jobs to the area. He said he wanted to point out certain conditions that would apply to the subject plat. He read the following staff-report comments having to do with storm water management.

  1. Impervious surface ratios must meet the design assumptions used for design of the detention basin.
  2. Water Quality must be provided for each lot.
  3. All public improvements must be constructed and accepted prior to acceptance of final plat.

He read the following comments having to do with “traffic”:

1.    Division Street is classified as a primary arterial, which requires 50 feet of right-of-way measured from centerline.  Right-of-way width appears acceptable.
2.    Haseltine Road (FR 115) is classified as a primary arterial street, which requires 50 feet of right-of-way measured from centerline. The plat proposes 30 feet additional right-of-way to address this.
3.    A 100 foot by 100 right-of-way triangle is required at the intersection of Division Street and Haseltine Road, which is shown on the plat drawing.
4.    The right-of-way for the cul-de-sac on Alliance Avenue shall have a minimum radius of 75 feet.

He also read the following excerpt from the staff report, having to do with sidewalk construction:

Staff has discussed the sidewalk improvements on the Preliminary Plat of Partnership Industrial Center – West, Phase 13 and has determined that construction of the sidewalks along West Division Street and Haseltine Road may be deferred until Division and Haseltine Road are improved to appropriate street standards. It is not in the public interest to construct sidewalks in these sections that will later be torn out in order to improve the street. Construction of the unconstructed sections of interior sidewalks may be deferred for up to three years, pursuant to Section 303(5) of the Subdivision Regulations. Construction of these sidewalks is not feasible at this time.

The Regulations require the subdivider to submit a payment to the City, in the form of cash or a cashier’s check, for the cost of constructing the sidewalks. In this case, the City, as a member of the Springfield Partnership for Economic Development, is the subdivider. Therefore, it will not be necessary for the City to submit payment to itself. A note indicating that the sidewalks along West Division Street and Haseltine Road, as well as the remaining unconstructed sections of interior sidewalks, were deferred may be placed in the file, instead.

Mr. MacPherson said that both Planning and Public Works staff were recommending approval.

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing. There were no speakers, so Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing.

Mr. Wheeler said he appreciated the City’s common sense regarding on the issue of sidewalk construction.

Mr. MacPherson said he would like to read into the record the following passage from the staff report’s Explanation Sheet:

"All required improvements shall be the sole responsibility of the subdivider. As prescribed by Section No. 300 of the Subdivision Regulations, the improvements shall be made or guaranteed by means of bond or escrow agreement. Release of the final plat for recording shall be withheld until the subdivider has complied with this section."

Lawhon made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit #393. Baird seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Young, Baird, Roling, Coltrin, McClelland, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Hansen, Edwards. 

OTHER BUSINESS:

7.    Ozark Mountain Redevelopment Plan                                                      Ozark Mountain Redevelopment Corp.
      (727 W. Walnut)

Mr. Schaefer said that the applicant was proposing a redevelopment plan in conjunction with an application for property tax abatement pursuant to Chapter 353 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. The project would be near the intersection of Grant and College streets. Mr. Schaefer briefly described the purpose and workings of the Chapter 353 tax abatement program. He said the proposal was to redevelop the former bakery on the west side of Grant Ave. and establish a microbrewery there. A vacant tract of land at the southeast corner of Grant and College would be turned into a site for off-street parking. He said city staff believes the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan based on the following passages from the Plan, which he read from the city’s staff report:

  1. The subject properties are located within Jordan Valley. Section Four of the Jordan Valley and Jordan Valley Park Concept Plan and Design Guidelines specifically addresses the area surrounding the intersection of Grant Avenue and College Street.  The Plan identifies this intersection as a gateway to Jordan Valley from the south. It also recognizes the historic and cultural significance of former Route 66 (now College Street) and suggests that it should be highlighted in any redevelopment project. Mixed-use development is recommended in this area.
  2. Objective 20 (Industrial Development) listed in the Growth Management and Land Use Plan recommends working, “to provide the community with industrial areas that facilitate economic development and job retention, that are well integrated into the fabric of the community, and that are responsive to environmental concerns.”

Mr. Schaefer said that redeveloping the subject sites would eliminate blight and help strengthen the neighborhood around them.

Mr. Wheeler asked whether there would be any restrictions on the kind of parking made available at the sites. Mr. Schaefer said the sites would be subject to the City’s parking regulations. Mr. Wheeler asked whether the parking could be used for tractor trailers and whether the parking spaces could be rented out. Ms. Yendes said the subject area was not zoned to allow for the establishment of what she called a “motor freight yard.”

Ms. Roling asked whether the subject sites were located “in the CID.” Mr. Schaefer said he did not think they were in “the downtown CID.”

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing.

Sarah Wilson, 901 St. Louis Street said she was available to answer questions.

Ms. Roling asked whether the subject property was located in the CID. Ms. Wilson said, “To my knowledge, it’s not.”

There being no other speakers, Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing.

Lawhon made a motion to approve the Ozark Mountain Redevelopment Plan. McClelland seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Coltrin, Young, Roling, Baird, McClelland, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Edwards, Hansen

OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION:

There being no other items of discussion, Mr. Wheeler adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:12 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