Minutes for the Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission
Date: November 18, 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: Shelby Lawhon, Vice-Chair; Jim Hansen; Gloria Roling; Thomas Baird, IV; King Coltrin; Jay McClelland; Matthew Edwards; Mike MacPherson, Principal Planner, Planning and Development; Marianne Banks, Assistant City Attorney; Paula Brookshire, Public Works; Cody Marshall, Public Works. ABSENT: Jack Wheeler, Phil Young.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the commission meeting of November 4, 2010, were approved as submitted.
Mr. MacPherson introduced staff member Marianne Banks to the Commission.
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. Excess School Property East Springfield R-12 School District
(3429 E. Chestnut Expressway)
Mr. Macpherson read the following excerpt from the City’s staff report on this case:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 18.72 acres into a two-lot subdivision. The application includes a request for two subdivision variances to allow a payment of a fee in lieu of constructing sidewalk on existing Eastgate Avenue and to not dedicate additional right-of-way along existing Eastgate Avenue and Chestnut Expressway.
Mr. MacPherson also read the following excerpts (Staff Comments section of the report):
The proposed subdivision will facilitate the sale of Lot 1(former Hickory Hills Elementary School) to a developer for redevelopment. Lot 2, which encompasses the Natatorium and its adjacent parking, will be retained by the school district. The new owner/developer of Lot 1will relocate Eastgate Avenue, provide sidewalks along the relocated Eastgate and dedicate additional right-of-way along Chestnut as part of a new preliminary plat and a Planned Development that Commission will review in the near future.
Staff supports the proposed subdivision variances because the relocation of Eastgate is necessary to provide efficient traffic flow when the new diverging-diamond interchange at Chestnut and U.S. 65 is constructed in 2012. Eastgate Avenue, as it exists, will no longer be necessary and the construction of sidewalks and dedication of right-of-way will not provide any benefit to the public. Instead, relocated Eastgate Avenue, with sidewalks, will be required when the Planned Development and a plat for Lot 1 and additional properties to the east are approved. The subject property and properties to the east are already zoned General Retail with Conditional Overlay District #4 that requires the relocation of Eastgate Avenue. Even if the developer’s plans are not implemented, development of Lot 1 to a higher intensity cannot occur without the relocation of Eastgate Avenue, so the City’s interests in providing adequate infrastructure for the new interchange and the development of the area are protected.
The applicant will also be requesting that City Council waive the fee-in-lieu of constructing sidewalks because sidewalks will be constructed by the developer on relocated Eastgate Avenue. The developer should not pay for sidewalks when the developer will be constructing sidewalks that serve the same function. Commission does not have the authority to waive the fee-in-lieu.
If the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the applicant’s request for a subdivision variance, the proposed preliminary plat, with the conditions listed, meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.
If the Planning and Zoning Commission does not approve the subdivision variance, the applicant’s proposal does not meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. MacPherson said that if the subdivision variances were approved, the proposal would be in conformance with the city’s subdivision regulations, and if the variances were not approved, the proposal would not be in conformance with the subdivision regulations. He then read staff’s recommendation, as follows:
The request be approved, provided that Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the standards for subdivision variance approval have been met and, if approved, the conditions listed below shall govern and control the subdivision of the land shown on Exhibit A. If Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the standards for subdivision variance approval have not been met, the plat needs to be revised to require sidewalks and dedication of additional right-of-way in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations.
Mr. Hansen asked where Eastgate Ave. would be relocated to. Mr. MacPherson pointed out its proposed new position on a map displayed in the council chambers.
Mr. Coltrin asked whether Eastgate was under the jurisdiction of the City or of MoDOT. Mr. MacPherson said it was under the jurisdiction of MoDOT and MoDOT had no objections to the proposal.
Paul Larino, no address given, said that “the school cannot sell a piece of property to us that’s not declared excess and they can’t declare the natatorium excess because it’s still in use, so basically we have to create another legal tract of land that they can sell to us.” He said that in the future he would be putting sidewalks on both sides of a relocated Eastgate Ave.
Mr. McClelland asked what would happen to the natatorium. Mr. Larino said the natatorium would “stay as a part of the plat that’s coming through.” He said that “the excess portion is not the natatorium.”
Mr. Lawhon asked how soon Eastgate would be relocated. Mr. Larino said that construction on Eastgate would probably begin in “early summer or late spring [of 2012].”
Mr. Lawhon asked if there were any other persons present wanting to comment on the proposal. There were not.
(Staff Note: A public hearing was never formally opened.)
McClelland made a motion to approve the preliminary plat called Excess School Property East. Baird seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Coltrin, Baird, Roling, McClelland, Hansen, Edwards, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Young, Wheeler.
ANY OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMISSON JURISDICTION:
There being no further business, Mr. Lawhon adjourned the meeting at approximately 6:48 p.m.