Minutes for the Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Date: August 6, 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, Ed Alden, Peggy Hedrick, Ray Shermer, King Coltrin, Shelby Lawhon, Jay McClelland, Matthew Edwards,  Daniel Neal, Senior Planner, Planning and Development, Ralph Rognstad, Director of Planning and Development, Nancy Yendes, Assistant City Attorney; ABSENT: Michael Sutton.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:          

The minutes for July 9, 2009 were approved unanimously.

COMMUNICATIONS:

Mr. Neal said Vacation 738 has been withdrawn by the applicant.

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 737                                Ernest Giddens(1820 North Barnes)
  1. Relinquish Easement 737                           Davis Estates, LLC(2715 East Battlefield)

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

HEARINGS: 

VACATIONS:

3.   Vacation 739                                             City of Springfield
(1100 blk W. Poplar & an alley at the 600 blk N. Franklin)

Mr. Neal said this request will facilitate the construction of a new management facility at this location.  The request meets the approval criteria listed in Attachment B of the staff report and the required replacement easements have been submitted and approved.  Staff is recommending approval.

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

Shermer made the motion to approve Vacation 739.  Alden seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Sutton.

ZONING:

4. Z-11-2009/Conditional Overlay District #29                Campus Rentals, LLC
(1900 blk. South Campbell east side)

Mr. Neal said the applicant has proposed to combine the rezoned properties into one lot and redevelop the site for a hotel and retail buildings.  The COD district would require secondary access, a lot combination of all properties within the rezoning and that all stormwater runoff should be directed to the north/south drainage system traversing the property or the addition of a new drainage facility.  The Growth Management and Land Use Plan of the City’s Comprehensive Plan designate this area as appropriate for high intensity retail, office and residential uses.  This high-intensity category is located near Activity Centers where density and intensity is expected to be greater.  The Growth Management and Land Use Plan recommend GR or HC, Office, Medium- and High-Density Multi-Family Residential Districts in these areas.  The HC district is intended for commercial uses that depend on high visibility, generate high traffic volume or cater to the traveling public.  The district is also intended to be located along arterial classified streets such as Campbell Avenue.  Staff believes the proposed properties, if combined as required by the overlay district, meets the recommendations of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the HC District.  The traffic generation from the LI and R-SF uses to the HC uses required a traffic impact study that was submitted by the applicant.  Public Works Traffic Division has reviewed the study and agree with the findings and recommendations given and support the proposed rezoning.  The study identifies a secondary access for the development to Campbell, which would be located south of the existing Bass Pro entrance traffic signal.  Traffic has also required a condition be placed in the overlay requiring the secondary access be located on Cherokee to the south or Sunshine via a cross access easement.  The Zoning Ordinance requires a Bufferyard “F” between the Highway Commercial District and any adjacent R-SF districts.  The Bufferyard “F” requires a minimum open space of twenty feet wide with the following plantings per one hundred linear feet:  three canopy trees, three understory trees, four evergreen trees and twenty-four shrubs.  A six foot solid wood fence, masonry wall, solid evergreen hedge or earthen berm is required along the property boundary if a twenty foot bufferyard is used. If a twenty-five foot bufferyard is chosen then a fence, wall or hedge is not required. When adjacent right-of-way is seventy feet or less and residentially zoned property is located across it, a Bufferyard “S2” is required. The Bufferyard “S2” requires a minimum open space of fifteen feet wide with the following plantings per one hundred linear feet:  one canopy tree, two understory tree and four shrubs. All structures shall also remain below a degree bulk plane as measured from the boundaries of any residential districts. The Zoning Ordinance requires perimeter landscaping where a parking lot or vehicular use area is within fifty feet of a public right-of-way and there is not an intervening building. Perimeter landscaping is a minimum open space of ten feet wide between the abutting right-of-way and the off-street parking or vehicular use area with the following plantings per hundred linear feet: one canopy tree, one understory, ornamental, or evergreen tree and four shrubs.  The Zoning Ordinance does not permit any land which is located in a residential district to be used for a driveway or vehicular use access to any land which is located in any non-residential district.  Mr. Neal said the staff report needs to be corrected where it states there would be no access to Washita or South Avenue permitted.  The Zoning Ordinance actually states the HC zoning would not allow streets to adjacent residential area to be used to provide principal access for truck traffic except on a street classified as an expressway, arterial or collector.  Washita and South are considered residential locals.  Secondary access is not restricted but the Traffic Division has the authority to require secondary access in a more appropriate location if available.  In this case, that would be Cherokee.  The Conditional Overlay District #29 will reduce the impact of the proposed rezoning to the surrounding neighborhood and traffic circulation system. The condition for a lot combination of all rezoned properties will eliminate the possibility of any principal commercial access to Washita Street or South Avenue. The condition that requires all stormwater to be directed into the existing north-south drainage system traversing the property or a new drainage facility as part of the redevelopment will alleviate concerns that any additional stormwater runoff may have on the current condition of the adjacent stormwater system or street. The condition to provide secondary access to Cherokee or Sunshine will reduce the potential traffic impact at the intersection of the Bass Pro entrance along Campbell Avenue.  In response to the neighborhood concerns expressed at the Planning Commission meeting on August 6th, the applicant has amended their conditional overlay district to restrict and require additional items. The applicant has requested a condition to restrict access to Washita or South Avenue except by Planning Commission & Public Works approval which will reduce any concerns that additional commercial traffic will enter onto the adjacent residential streets. The applicant has requested a Bufferyard F which is additional landscaping and a fence along South Avenue and the two (2) adjacent single-family residential properties. The Bufferyard F contains more plantings (trees and shrubs) than what is required by the Zoning Ordinance and the required fence or screening is an additional requirement that the applicant has requested to address neighborhood concerns.  The applicant has prohibited seven (7) permitted uses which include ambulance services, cemeteries, bus stations, fairgrounds, household resource recovery collection centers, taxi dispatch yards and offices and transitional service shelters. The applicant was not comfortable with eliminating the potential for campgrounds & recreational vehicle parks and manufactured housing (mobile home) and trailer sales, leasing and service with no storage uses. The conditional overlay district does not include a site plan or layout. The City’s Exterior Lighting Standards restrict the permitted lumination to no more than one-half (0.5) footcandles at any point along the perimeter of a property where it adjoins a residential zoning district or is separated from a residential district by a right-of-way of seventy (70) fee or less; and one (1) footcandle at any other point along the perimeter of the property. It also states that there shall be no lighting of a blinking, flashing, rotating or fluttering nature, including changes in light intensity, brightness, or color except for public safety purposes. A site lighting plan for uses requiring site plan review is required to be submitted and approved by the City that meets these requirements.  Staff recommends approval. 

Mr. Wheeler asked if there are guarantees included within the overlay that there will be no access to South or Washita.  Mr. Neal said there is not.  Mr. Wheeler said is it conceivable a site plan could allow car access to Washita or South.  Mr. Neal said it is possible.  Mr. Wheeler said he would hope if it were a possibility it would be addressed in the overlay.  He said on Page 10, Item 4 it states a 30 feet bulk plane and asked if it was supposed to say 30 degree bulk plane.  Mr. Neal said that is a typo and should read 30 degree.

Mr. McClelland said the staff report, in the area addressing the bulk plane, indicates it is measured from the boundary of any residential districts.  He asked how many residences it takes to make a district.  Mr. Rognstad said the district refers to a zoning district, such as single family. 

Mr. Coltrin said Stormwater Comments #2 states that if the existing system is inadequate to convey the peak stormwater rates, additional measures will be engineered.  He asked if that referred to the stormwater conveyance being inadequate and it would have to follow the City’s stormwater regulations for detention.  Mr. Short said they would have to engineer a way to somehow get their stormwater into that north/south system and they would have to meet the City’s requirements for detention.

Mr. Wheeler said under Staff Comments Item 7 it uses the phrase lighting for public safety.  He asked if that referred to security lighting in a parking lot and if that would allow them to exceed the City’s requirements.  Mr. Rognstad said they would have to meet the standards.  Mr. Wheeler said it appears to be clear that South Campbell is appropriate for high intensity, retail, office and residential uses.  Since in this case there are residential lots on South being considered he asked if there were standards that say how far an Activity Center can go off of a street like Campbell.  Mr. Rognstad said there is no real definition as to the size of an Activity Center.  Staff tries to look at where it seems the neighborhood begins to be solid.  Mr. Wheeler recalls a case along Kearney or Glenstone that referred to a study stating Commission should consider increasing the depth of some of the lots to allow for more modern businesses.  He asked if that relates to this case.  Mr. Rognstad said the issue with the corridors, such as Glenstone or Campbell, is that when they were originally zoned there were no requirements for open space, buffers or perimeter landscaping and the businesses tended to be smaller.  That made it difficult to get everything onto the property so staff felt it was appropriate to expand back 200-300 feet.  Staff also recommended looking at each neighborhood and if there was a really solid neighborhood it may not be appropriate to rezone it back further.  There are no absolute lines.  

Mr. Lawhon asked about the access areas onto Washita and South.  Mr. Neal said access management is controlled by Traffic Engineering so they would look at other possibilities such as having the traffic go onto Cherokee.  Mr. Lawhon asked if there were any circumstances where there could be access onto South or Washita.  Mr. Gugel said they look at the most logical place for access that would be coherent with the surroundings such as use and street classification.  If this development of Cherokee did not exist staff would look at granting secondary access on a street such as South or Washita.  The ordinance does prohibit truck access off of a local classification street and staff would look at ways to discourage that kind of use.  Since Cherokee is present and there is HC zoning across from part of this development Traffic Engineering would require secondary access at that location. 

Mr. Wheeler asked if the applicant could restrict access in the overlay district.  Mr. Gugel said it could be done but based on the conditions and the surrounding street network staff would not entertain a secondary access request. 

Richard Walters, 901 St. Louis, said he is the attorney for the applicants who are affiliated with Bass Pro Shops and have been assembling the subject property for about 25 years.  They feel the zoning change to HC is consistent with the intended uses that were set forth in the application and it is consistent with the adjacent areas.  The Sunshine west of Campbell and Campbell south of Sunshine area is consistently zoned HC while being adjacent to single-family areas.  They believe the HC zoning is more consistent with the area than the current zoning of LI because it would allow the industrial uses, require less open space and allow for more impervious surfaces.  The conditions within their overlay were put in to specifically address neighbor concerns of traffic and water discharge.  Mr. Walters said they are willing to consent to a prohibition of access from the property to South and Washita because they did not intend to have access to those areas.  They held a neighborhood meeting on July 13 and there were over 100 people in attendance.  They also attended a supplemental meeting of the Seminole Holland Neighborhood Association and they have tried to listen to the concerns of the neighbors.  The site plan process is another opportunity to work with the neighbors and to address some concerns such as screening, access, buffers and illumination. 

Mr. Shermer said he understands a hotel is part of this zoning but he has also heard there are possibly other land uses.  He asked for confirmation that a more sedate and professional hotel will be located to assure the neighbors a strip center will not be going in.  Mr. Walters said they have made public the conceptual uses such as a hotel, restaurant, bowling alley, retail and spa services.  Until the site plan issues are worked through they cannot say exactly. 

Mr. Wheeler said Commission cannot ask for a commitment on the hotel and the only way to require that would be to make it part of the overlay district.

Mr. McClelland said looking at the addresses 1925 and 1937 it appears they cannot meet the 30 degree bulk plane requirement with a 5-story hotel.  Mr. Walters they have discussed this with staff and are aware of the requirement and the impact it would have on the design and height of the building.  They will deal with that issue in the site plan phase. 

Mr. Wheeler said he is concerned that there is a possibility for different uses allowed in the HC zoning since they are not prohibited within their overlay.  They have to consider what could happen on the property.  Mr. Walters said when you consider the market value of the property there are many HC uses that would likely not be able to locate on this property.  Uses on the property will be addressed on the site plan.

Mr. Rognstad said staff does not have a problem with limiting the access to South and Washita but would have a concern that at some time conditions on those streets would change.  Staff would prefer that condition state no access would be granted without the approval of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Zoning Commission.  If the property to the east of south redevelops to high-density residential than it would be more appropriate to provide more direct access. 

Jim Pickett, 1902 South Avenue, said he is pleased with the staff report but does have a few questions and concerns.  He said they have talked about a neighborhood in deterioration and asked at what point they considered a neighborhood deteriorated.  This area is prone to flooding both from the sewers and water runoff and the City have purchased two homes to clear for detention.  He believes the applicant would be adding their water runoff to the downstream and back up the area even more.  The Comprehensive Plan encourages the creation of an attractive pedestrian streetscape and he hopes that would be more than encouraged.  They have no assurance the applicant would be the one developing the property so they would like the requirements to be in the plan.  Mr. Pickett said he would like to see “F” and “F1” buffers along South Street so it would be very dense, be more aesthetically pleasing and reduce noise.  To the north of his property there has been many times trucks have woke them up and he would like as much buffers as they can get.  He believes the rezoning is fine but the Conditional Overlay needs some more work.

Mr. Wheeler said Commission hears a lot about stormwater problems and you need to have faith in staff and their ability to engineer stormwater.  Mr. Pickett said the current system was done prior to all of the development in the area and it just seems to be too small. 

Mr. Shermer asked how far the buffer could come toward South.  Mr. Neal said the bufferyard, if fully developed, would be against South Avenue’s right-of-way.  Mr. Pickett said he would like the perpetual maintenance of the bufferyard to be a requirement of the overlay. 

Mr. Wheeler asked if the fence could be located anywhere within the bufferyard.  Mr. Rognstad said there is no requirement for the location of the fence.  Mr. Wheeler said the bufferyard is to protect the neighbors but sometimes the fence hides the bufferyard and it loses its point. 

Mark Clore, 1924 South Avenue, said he is concerned about people staying in the hotel looking into their yards, that this will open the door and allow the owners to do even more with the property, traffic, stormwater problems and there is an occupied house at 1919 that is not reflected on the maps.  He believes by allowing them to only take one side of the street they will not have to fix the flooding issue and the City will have to step in and do it.  He thinks this is going to stress their neighborhood, affect their quality of life and decrease their property values.  There is an underground stream that runs under properties and he believes they should take all of the houses in the area and pay not only appraised value but also for the resident’s quality of life. 

Mr. Coltrin asked how the current zoning of LI affects them.  Mr. Clore said they hear the trash containers being dumped.  Mr. Coltrin said the property could be transferred with the LI zoning and several uses could occur.  He asked if he preferred that than this proposal.  Mr. Clore said no but if you eliminate the grassy areas you put more water onto South Avenue and will decrease the property values.  He feels they should take the responsibility of the entire street and give the residents a chance to not live there.  Mr. Coltrin said he understands that whatever happens with the stormwater will be controlled by the regulations.  He asked if whatever comes from the subject property will be collected and taken from South Avenue down to Cherokee.  Mr. Short said that is correct.  The subject property slopes towards South Avenue and the conditional overlay states they will cease draining onto South Avenue.  There is a flooding problem at South and Washita and the City has purchased properties in the hopes of providing a detention area at some point in the future.  Mr. Coltrin said Mr. Clore is saying they want the amount of water coming toward them reduced.  Mr. Clore said by allowing anything, including a hotel, you will back the street into a corner because they will not be able to sell their homes.  Mr. Coltrin said the stormwater engineer just stated that the water from the property currently flows toward and into South at this time but will be prohibited in the future.  That would decrease the amount of water.  Mr. Clore said that will back up the drainage onto Cherokee.  Mr. Coltrin said the City’s regulations will not allow them to dump into an undersized facility and will ensure it works properly. 

Kathleen Clore, 1924 South Avenue, said she would like this case to be tabled until they are past the conceptual stage and she also asked they deny the rezoning of all of the lots in their neighborhood.  Mr. Morris owns all but two of the lots on the west side of South and she believes they have enough land in the industrial area to build a hotel.  The lots on South could be a buffer and help absorb the water.  She does not believe the people are being considered, including those that sold their lots.  People were not treated fairly and this makes her want to move out of the City.

Pat McManns, 1849 S. Robberson, said when there are heavy rains the manholes float off and raw sewage runs into the street.  Regardless of what is allowed for access onto South and Washita, trucks will cut through their neighborhood. 

Mr. Wheeler said the applicant is willing to put a condition in the proposal prohibiting access on the Washita and South.  Mr. McManns said they will use it to get around the area stop lights. 
Mr. Alden said there are areas within the city where stormwater and sewers mix.  He asked if most of that was caused when surface water, which they plan to divert, gets into the sanitary sewer.  Mr. Coltrin said they probably have groundwater that surcharges in the rain and surface water that causes problems.  By developing this property it will take the surface water out of the mix.  It may not solve all of their sewer issues but it should be less than it is today. 

Mr. McManns said the City recently rezoned property at 300 & 316 Sunshine causing more impervious surface to be in the area. 

Mr. Wheeler said usually there is language in the staff report stating the development would not cause any more stormwater problems than exist at the time of development.  Ms. Yendes said they have to meet the ordinance and detention has to be in place, usually before you start construction.

Trisha Pearson, 2114 S. Holland, said she is the president of the Seminole Holland Neighborhood Association.  She said they met with the applicant and the association voted to not oppose this rezoning, however they would like to make some requests.  She said they would like uses such as ambulance services, campground or RV parks, cemeteries, bus stations, fairgrounds, household recovery collection centers, go-cart tracks and soup kitchens removed from the overlay in order to protect the neighborhood.  They also ask the bufferyard be increased from a minimum of 20 feet to a minimum of 25 feet.  There is a section of proposed HC zoning at 1931, between two R-SF zoned homes.  That lot is 50 feet and the increase in bufferyard would prevent a 10 foot section between the two homes from being HC property.  They would also like to see at least an additional five feet at the back with a fence on the inside of the bufferyard.  They would like no access onto South or Washita and they would like to see the traffic study updated to take into account the traffic generated from the Wonders of Wildlife when it reopens.  They appreciate the City’s effort to address the stormwater issues but they would like more intense studies of the existing sanitary sewer system and the problems it is causing in the neighborhood.  Ms. Pearson thanked staff for assisting her with information on the proposal.

Mr. Wheeler said she had listed RV parking as a use they would like to see removed and asked if they also requested RV and boat sales to be removed.  Ms. Pearson said they are requesting manufactured housing and trailer sales, leasing and service.  Mr. Wheeler asked if manufactured housing referred to RV’s.  Ms. Pearson said she was talking about trailers. 

Mr. Lawhon clarified they wanted the fence on the inside of the bufferyard.  Ms. Pearson said that was correct.  She said if the applicant agrees to the 25 foot buffer on each side she does not believe there is a need for a fence between the two properties.  That would give the neighborhood a greenspace they can enjoy. 

Mr. Neal said boat marine sales and service is different from manufactured homes and trailer sales.  Mr. Wheeler asked about recreational vehicles.  Mr. Neal said camper and trailer sales, lease and rental is also separate. 

Mike Petiford, 5654 South Lakeridge, said his daughter lives at 1908 South Avenue.  He said this request includes residential properties that are part of the neighborhood.  By including those properties you lose the trees and will have a parking lot and a fence.  This will allow the resident’s to have HC zoning in front of them, not behind.  There are also going to be noise and lighting concerns as well as devaluing of property.

Linda Hunt, 1014 East Sunshine, said she is in favor of this proposal.  The proposal, compared to what is there now, will make a big difference.  She said this will create jobs and she feels the concerns have been addressed and may increase property values.  She bought her residence with the knowledge that there would be commercial development around her. 

Vicki Petiford, 5654 South Lakeridge, said they are not against the hotel or the economic growth.  She is against them taking residential property and then making it into HC property.

With no further speakers, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Edwards said he believes it is a good development and will be good for the City.  He does believe the neighbors have concerns that need to be addressed.  This development will come before Commission again throughout development and they need to ensure the stormwater and sewer issues get addressed.  He said he would be voting for the request.

Mr. McClelland said there are 77 uses in the HC zoning and he believes if they are going to build a hotel he would like to see it written in the proposal.  The bulk plane issue has to been taken care of by the applicant and he cannot vote for something when he does not know what is going to happen.  He will be voting against it.

Mr. Shermer said this is one of many cases where single-family streets parallel very busy thoroughfares and have been affected by changes in commercial use.  He understands the discomfort of the residents but believes when you purchase a home one street from a thoroughfare you should be aware commercial uses are not static and there will be changes.  He has weighed what is best for the City and since there will be substantial buffering he will be voting in favor of the proposal.

Ms. Hedrick said she does not like to think that buying one street from a commercial street means the residential street has to change.  She feels the discussion built on a lack of a conceptual structure.  If they were voting on the zoning change it is clear this is an activity area but the neighborhood on South seems to be stable and what could happen needs to be considered.  She said she would be voting against the proposal. 

Mr. Coltrin said they should make sure the access to South and Washita is denied in the proposal.  He would also like to ask Mr. Walters to place the wood fence at the buffer line and the landscaping would be between the fence and South, maintaining the residential look.  He believes this will help their stormwater problems and he believes leaving it as it is now is more destructive than the change.  He said there are probably some uses given by Ms. Pearson that the applicant would likely agree to eliminate.  He said he would be supporting the proposal.

Mr. Alden said he is known as a pro development Commissioner and he has not had a problem putting a commercial and office development next to residential uses.  In most cases he sees this in planned developments rather than just straight zoning.  He likes the ideas that have been discussed and he has no problems in changing the LI and the three R-SF properties facing Cherokee into HC.  He does have a problem with the other lots being turned into HC without a planned development.

Mr. Edwards said they have heard a lot of good points and if this were tabled they would have a chance to get together and include some different language to firm up the proposal.

Mr. Lawhon said often they are presented with requests that do not have a lot of specifics and only a general concept.  Sometimes you have to trust the applicant and developer and their track record.  Given the applicant’s reputation it makes him more comfortable.  The HC zoning is an improvement over the existing zoning and he is in favor of the plan.  He agrees there could be a benefit to tabling the case to address some of the items brought up tonight. 

Mr. McClelland said if this comes back stating what is not going to be there he may vote positively for the HC. 

Mr. Wheeler said he feels additional items need to be written into the proposal and the expansion of HC into the residential area needs to be considered.  He cannot support the proposal as written. 

Mr. Walters said a lot of valid concerns have been expressed by the neighbors and he feels the project and zoning is a great opportunity for improvement.  They are willing to table to address concerns and include some of the uses they do not intend to do while not delaying their schedule. 

Mr. Rognstad said if it is tabled they cannot stay on their original schedule.  He said if there is going to be a motion to table it needs to reopen and continue the public hearing to a specific date. 

Commission, staff and the applicant discussed tabling the case and the date it would be tabled to. 


Coltrin made the motion to table Zoning Case Z-11-2009/Conditional Overlay District #29 and reopen and continue the public hearing to the August 20, 2009 Commission meeting.  Edwards seconded the motion.  Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Sutton.

Mr. Wheeler called for a 5 minute recess.

PRELIMINARY PLATS:

5. Barnes-Blaine Development                               Ernest Giddens
    (1820 North Barnes)

Mr. Neal said this is a request to approve a preliminary plat to subdivide 5.98 acres into a lot manufacturing subdivision, including a request for two subdivision variances to create a lot without full frontage on a public street, and to pay a fee in lieu of constructing a portion of the sidewalk along Blaine Street.  Staff recommends approval, provided that Commission finds that the standards for subdivision variance approval have been met and, if approved, the conditions listed in the staff report shall govern and control the subdivision of the land shown on Exhibit A. 

Diana Dohman, Bockman Engineering, said there is an existing building and detention basin on the east side, which is also residential property and they are proposing to add two more lots along Barnes.  The variances are so they can have the third lot.  When the building was built in early 2000 you would have been allowed to use the detention basin as frontage for the building and since that time it has changed.  The variance is for a flag lot and the existing driveway will be part of Lot 3 but will be access for all three lots.  The second variance is to not build sidewalks on the very east portion of Blaine where the ditch is.  The developer is willing to build the rest of the sidewalks along Barnes and the west part of Blaine.  She said it is not a good idea to place the sidewalk where there is a detention basin and then the sidewalk will end at the residential area.  At ARC they were told by Mr. Thornsberry it is on the City’s list of projects to replace the open ditch with a box.  When the box is put in the sidewalk should be built at that time.

Mr. Wheeler asked staff to explain what happens when funds are accepted in lieu of sidewalks.  Mr. Gugel said staff will hold those funds until the old sidewalks are torn out and it is appropriate to construct new ones.  Mr. Wheeler said Springfield R-12 PTA puts together a list of sidewalks that are needed close to schools.  Mr. Gugel said staff does work with the school list.  Mr. Wheeler said the fee in lieu of pays for sidewalks to be built in neighborhoods where sidewalks are needed.  Mr. Gugel said the money does not have to be used in this particular area but will be used for sidewalks.
 
No one spoke in opposition.  The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Coltrin said this is an infill situation and when you infill within the City limits making a variance to allow for development is often required. 

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

6. Springfield Plaza Renewal                             Springfield Plaza, LLC
    (3800 West Sunshine)

Mr. Neal said this request is to renew a preliminary plat to subdivide 99 acres into a 12 lot commercial subdivision.  The applicant’s proposal, with the conditions listed in the report, is consistent with the City’s Subdivision Regulations.  He said Condition 1F needs to be stricken from the report.  The applicant currently owns the property so access is no longer necessary. 

Mr. Coltrin asked if the alignment of the section of Washita that turns and becomes Zimmer Road is acceptable.  Mr. Gugel said the connection is not anticipated to be made between Zimmer from Sunshine to this section so it is acceptable.

Derek Lee, Lee Engineering, said the condition staff requested to strike is also under Traffic Engineering Comments Condition 2 and asked that it be stricken from that part of the staff report as well.  He said the only change made since the original plat was approved is that there were two additional piece of property purchased. 
 
No one spoke in opposition.  The public hearing was closed. 

Shermer made the motion to approve Preliminary Plat – Springfield Plaza Renewal and strike Condition 1F and Traffic Engineering Comments 2 on Page B-1.  Edwards seconded the motion.  Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Alden, Hedrick, Shermer, Coltrin, Lawhon, McClelland, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Sutton.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Mr. Neal said the Urban Garden Task Force will begin next Tuesday at 6:30 in the 4th floor conference room of the Busch Building.  Meetings will be weekly until September 1.  Mr. Wheeler invited anyone interested to attend the meeting.  Staff will provide Commission with a list of those serving on the task force. 

ANY OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMISSION JURISDICTION:

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:25 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