Minutes for the Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Date: April 29, 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; Jim Hansen; Jay McClelland; Matthew Edwards; Mike MacPherson, Principal Planner, Planning and Development; Nancy Yendes, Assistant City Attorney; ABSENT: Phil Young, King Coltrin.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:          

The minutes of April 15, 2010, were approved unanimously.

COMMUNICATIONS:

Mr. MacPherson said that, regardarding items 1, 3, 7, and 9, the applicants had requested that the cases be tabled until the Commission meeting scheduled for May 13. He also said that a suite had been reserved for Commission members for the May 27th Cardinals game.

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 747                                   Assemblies of God Financial Services Group
    (1600 block W. Battlefield)
    (The above item was tabled, as per the COMMUNICATIONS section above.)

 2.  Relinquish Easement 748                                    QC Land, LLC
     (1500 block W. Lark)


 3.  Relinquish Easement 749                                    ANFWMD
     (500 block W. Sunshine)
     (The above item was tabled, as per the COMMUNICATIONS section above.)


 4.  Relinquish Easement 750                                    Springfield Grocer Company, LLC
     (2415 W. Battlefield)


Mr. Wheeler noted that Items #1 and #3 had been tabled and he entertained motions regarding the consent agenda minus the tabled items.

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


HEARINGS: 

ZONING:

5.     Z-10-2010                                               WBK, LLC
       (315 E. Weaver Rd.)

Mr. MacPherson said this case was a request to rezone approximately 1.39 acres of land generally located at 315 E. Weaver Rd. (FR 178) from an R-SF, Residential Single-Family, zoning district to a GR, General Retail, zoning district.
 
Mr. MacPherson gave the following statements as reasons for approval:

1. The proposed uses permitted in the General Retail District are consistent with neighboring uses.


2. The Springfield-Greene County Growth Management and Land Use Plan indicates the subject property should be developed as high-intensity retail, office or housing.

Mr. MacPherson said that Weaver Road will eventually be realigned in such a way that the subject site will be separated from the rest of the land that is zoned single-family, making it a small island of residentially zoned land at a busy intersection.

Mr. MacPherson said that the rezoning would not take effect until certain conditions are met. He read the following conditions from the City’s staff report:

1.   Weaver Road is classified as a secondary arterial that requires 35 feet of right-of-way as measured from centerline. Any right-of-way and easements needed for the relocation of Weaver Road will have to be dedicated if not already done.

2.  The requested change in zoning would cause an increase of almost 1,000 daily trips.  Improvements are planned for Weaver Road. Existing Weaver Road would be inadequate to handle the increase in trips that would result from this rezone request. The zoning to Weaver Road will not be effective until the relocation of Weaver Road and sidewalks are completed.
 
If these conditions are not completed within two years from the date the City Council approves this ordinance, then the approval is null and void and the zoning will remain R-SF, Residential Single Family District.

Mr. Wheeler asked about the probability of seeing the Weaver Road improvements finished in two years. Mr. MacPherson responded that “if the work was underway and substantially complete, we would extend [the deadline].”

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing. Kathleen Giles, 2826 S. Ingram Mill, said she was representing the applicant. She pointed out that the staff report says that Ward creek flows through the subject property, but in fact it is located north of the subject site and does “not affect the subject property at all.” She said all the City’s storm-water requirements would be met at the time of development.

Mr. MacPherson said that staff would be willing to add “an automatic extension into the council bill to ensure they’ll have the opportunity to continue the zoning until the road project is complete.” Ms. Yendes said that, “we can build that into the council bill where you all can look at it and say ‘Yes, it’s still appropriate; they get another year’.”

Ms. Giles returned to the podium and said that the sidewalk mentioned in the staff report referred to a sidewalk on the new portion of Weaver road, not the old portion of Weaver Road. Mr. Hansen asked her what would happen to the old portion of the road. She said the road would still be used by abutting property owners, but vehicles would no longer be physically able “to turn onto Campbell” from the old part of the road.

Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing.

There was a discussion of how to amend the proposal under discussion to allow an extension of the road-building deadline. Ms. Yendes said that the amendment should state that the Commission is authorized “to extend the conditional time period an additional twelve months.” 

McClelland made a motion to amend case Z-10-2010 “to allow the Commission to extend an extension of twelve months for the use of the road.” Lawhon seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Roling, Baird, Hansen, McClelland, Edwards, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Young.

Edwards made a motion to approve case Z-10-2010 as amended. McClelland seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Roling, Baird, Hansen, McClelland, Edwards, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Young.


FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN:

6.    PD 309 FDP Amended                                                       Bartley-Decatur Neighborhood Center
      (918 E. Calhoun)

Mr. MacPherson said that the purpose of the proposal was to approve a final development plan having a site plan that the Administrative Review Committee cannot approve due to its lack of conformity to the previously approved planned development but which merits approval despite this lack of conformity.

Mr. Macpherson showed the Commission two site plans, the original one for the subject property and the new, proposed one. He read the following excerpt from the City’s staff report:

Planned Development 309 was approved by City Council on November 27, 2006. The requirements and standards for Planned Development 309 are attached (Exhibits 1-3). A final development plan following Planned Development 309 was submitted and approved by the Administrative Review Committee (ARC) on December 18, 2008; however, since that time, the applicants have had issues securing financing for the project. The applicants would like to move forward with the federal funding that they currently have and would make modifications to the planned development in the future if necessary. The federal funding has a strict time frame in which the project would need to be started and completed. The applicants’ site plan and proposal has significantly less floor area and size than the approved preliminary development plan.

He also read the following section of the zoning ordinance (Sect. 4-2509.D):

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 parts of the staff report:

2.         The applicants have cited issues with securing financing for the preliminary development plan that was approved by City Council. The applicants would like to move forward with the federal funding that they currently have.

3.         The applicants’ proposed final development plan (Exhibits 4 & 5) has significantly less floor area and size than the approved preliminary development plan. The building elevations have been provided for Commission and Council review. The parking and open space areas have been moved, but the amount of parking and open space used is generally the same. The bufferyards have been adjusted, but have the same amount if not more landscaping and bufferyard area compared to the original proposal.

4.         All other requirements of Planned Development 309 have been met with this final development plan.

5.         The existing Bartley-Decatur building is a local historic site and exterior changes to the site require Landmarks Board review.

Mr. MacPherson said the Landmarks Board approved the Bartley-Decatur proposal for a new site plan and building addition by a vote of 6-0 at its meeting on April 28, 2010.
He said the Board liked the fact that the size of the building addition had been reduced and thus did not “overwhelm” the original building.

Mr. MacPherson read the following findings from 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 applicant would amend the existing planned development district in the future if any additional expansions are planned.

Mr. Lawhon clarified with Mr. MacPherson that the building’s uses would remain the same as originally proposed in the planned development.

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing.

John Oke-Thomas, 1972 E. Chestnut Expressway, architect on the project, said he concurred with staff’s description of the project.

There being no other speakers, Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing. He said he viewed the proposal favorably.

Baird made a motion to approve the amended final development plan for PD 309. McClelland seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Roling, Baird, Hansen, McClelland, Edwards, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Young.


USE PERMITS:

7.    UP 387                                                       Metropolis Holding Company
      (314 E. Olive)

(The above item was tabled, as per the COMMUNICATIONS section above.)

8.    UP 388                                                       Interstate Brands Corp.
      (727 W. Walnut and 736 W. College)

Mr. MacPherson said that the purpose of the proposal was to request a use permit to allow a brewery on a tract of land at 727 W. Walnut Street. He read the requirements for a conditional use permit that are set out in the zoning ordinance, as follows:

No conditional use permit shall be valid for a period longer than eighteen (18) months from the date on which the City Council grants the conditional use permit, unless within such eighteen (18) months period: 

1. A building permit is obtained and the erection or alteration of a structure is started; or
2. An occupancy permit is obtained and the conditional use commenced. 

The City Council may grant one (1) additional extension not exceeding eighteen (18) months, upon written application, without notice or hearing. No additional extension shall be granted without complying with the notice and hearing requirements for an initial application for a conditional use permit.


Mr. MacPherson said that staff had found that the subject application meets the 21 standards for approval listed in the zoning ordinance and duplicated in Attachment 2 of the City’s staff report. He noted that two neighborhood meetings had been held on the proposal, so that “there has been considerable public input into the process” and there have not been negative comments from the “neighboring community.” The site being proposed for redevelopment, he said, is the “old bakery.” 

Ms. Roling said she was recusing herself from this case.

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing. Jack Schrag, 1326 S. Virginia, said he was the applicant and he described the project as being a micro-brewery.

Mr. Hansen asked if the tasting room would be a retail outlet. Mr. Schrag said that yes, it would be; people could purchase some of the finished product and take it with them.

John Luce, 1868 S. Bristol, said he was an architect working on the project and he would be willing to answer questions. There were no questions forthcoming.

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

Mr. Edwards said he was in favor of the proposal, which he thought would help build a bridge between downtown and the West Meadows area.

Lawhon made a motion to approve Conditional Use Permit #388. McClelland seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Baird, Hansen, McClelland, Edwards, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Coltrin, Young.


PRELIMINARY PLAT:

9.    CECC Subdivision                                                       Assemblies of God Financial Services Group
      (1600 block W. Battlefield)

(The above item was tabled, as per the COMMUNICATIONS section above.)


VACATION:

10.    Vacation 744                                                       Enterprise Laundry, Inc.
        (1500 block S. Enterprise)

Mr. MacPherson said that the purpose of the case was to vacate a portion of a cul-de-sac generally located on the east side of the 1500 block of South Enterprise Avenue. He read the following statements from the City’s staff report:

  1. The proposed street vacation will reduce the City’s liability for any parking or other operations that take place within our existing cul-de-sac right-of-way which serves no public purpose. It will also facilitate the potential expansion of services for St. John’s.
  2. The Public Works Traffic Division does not have any concerns with this vacation as long public infrastructure is replaced and adequate right-of-way is retained.
  3. The proposed vacation meets the approval criteria for vacating right-of-way with the proposed conditions. The proposed conditions will require City Council to approve this vacation.
  4. The applicant has requested three (3) years to meet the conditions because they may not have the funding for improvements within the next fiscal year budget and they may need more than one year to complete the conditions once they do have funding.

Mr. Macpherson stated told the Commission that before the vacation could take effect, the following conditions would need to be met, as stated in the City’s staff report:

  1. CU gas and water services shall be relocated or preserved with replacement easements. If relocation is necessary, then gas and water facilities are to be relocated at the owner's expense.
  2. Dedicate additional right-of-way to thirty (30) feet from center of Enterprise Avenue along Lot 15 and adjacently owned tract. 
  3. Reconstruct curb and gutter along a radius of the street and construct sidewalk along entire frontage of Lot 15 and adjacently owned tract, each meeting Public Works design standards.  A public improvement plan is required. The improvements may be escrowed following the City’s Subdivision Regulations.
  4. A certificate of decision is recorded along with the above mentioned dedications and easements.

If these conditions are not met within three (3) years of City Council’s approval, then that vacation approval is null and void and the portion of the cul-de-sac shall remain public right-of-way.

Mr. MacPherson said that the subject street, Enterprise Avenue, would remain open.

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing.

There being no one wanting to speak to this case, Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing. He said he would abstain from voting, since he was an employee of St. John’s, which had a connection to the case.

Hansen made a motion to approve the case Vacation 744. McClelland seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Roling, Baird, Hansen, McClelland, Edwards, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: Wheeler; ABSENT: Coltrin, Young.


OTHER BUSINESS:

Mr. Wheeler asked staff about the issue of where liquor could be sold in relation to other land uses. Ms. Yendes said that City Council could legislate exceptions to the city code, but if the Council did that, they would have to reduce the distance (from 200 ft to, say, 100 ft) “for everything,” and the process would include amending the city code.

There being no other items of discussion, Mr. Wheeler adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:19 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