Minutes for the Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission

Date: December 2, 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; Matthew Edwards; King Coltrin; Phil Young; Mike MacPherson, Principal Planner, Planning and Development; Ralph Rognstad, Director, Planning and Development; Nancy Yendes, Assistant City Attorney; Cody Marshall, Public Works; Paula Brookshire, Public Works.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES        

The minutes of the commission meeting of November 18, 2010, were approved unanimously.

COMMUNICATIONS:

Mr. MacPherson said that agenda items #1 and #6 had been tabled until the January 6, 2011 meeting. He said that items 5 and 7 were related and could be discussed together. He also said that there would be a Christmas celebration on December 14.

Mr. Lawhon said that tonight was Jack Wheeler’s last Commission meeting. He presented Mr. Wheeler with a token of appreciation. Mr. Wheeler thanked the commission and staff for the gift and said he hoped other citizens would be willing to volunteer for City boards and thus help to “direct this city.”    

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.)   

(None.)

HEARINGS: 

VACATION:

1. Vacation 746                                       Greene County
    (200 block E. Webster)

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

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT:

2.   Z-20-2010/COD 37                                               Dorothy Crocker
     (536 E. Cherokee)

Mr. MacPherson said that the applicant is proposing a zoning change from R-SF to O-1 and the establishment of a conditional overlay district at the subject site. The land-use would be the continuation of a day care center already on the site. He said the use on the site now is considered to be a legal nonconforming use.

Mr. MacPherson read the following from the Staff Comments section of the City’s staff report:

7. The Conditional Overlay District will limit the use of the residential building fronting Cherokee Street to a single-family use consistent with the existing development to the north and to the east and west along Cherokee Street. 
8. The building in the center of the lot, currently used as a non-conforming Day Care Center, will be limited under the Conditional Overlay District to a Day Care Center use within the current square footage of the building.
9. The applicant wants to develop the storage building in the rear of the lot as part of the Day Care Center use. The Conditional Overlay District will allow only Day Care Center in the current square footage of this building. However, the redevelopment of the storage building will need to be in accordance with the non-conforming structures section of the zoning ordinance. The existing storage building is a non-conforming structure with respect to the rear yard setback and possibly the bulk-plane height limitations.
10. The Conditional Overlay District will limit the height of all structures to one story.

Mr. MacPherson said staff was recommending approval of the request based on the following findings, which he read from the staff report:

  1. Approval of this request will rezone the subject property to O-1 Office District, which permits Day Care Centers.
  2. The proposed Conditional Overlay District No. 37 will restrict the uses in the O-1, Office District to a Day Care Center and residential uses.
  3. Approval of this request will permit an existing non-conforming Day Care Center use in an R-SF district to become conforming within an O-1, Office District.

Mr. Coltrin recused himself.

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing.

Kathleen Giles, no address given, said she was representing Shawn Glossip, who had the subject property under contract. She said her client thought the business would be a good facility for the neighborhood and that the fact that it would be expanding so as to provide infant day care was another plus for the neighborhood. She said that if the nonconforming building on the site were destroyed it would have to be rebuilt so as to meet the standards of the then-current zoning ordinance with respect to rear-yard setback and bulk plane.

Regarding the City’s stipulation that a sidewalk be built along Cherokee St., she said that “typically, a sidewalk is a subdivision issue” and her client was “not doing any subdivision activity on this property.” She said her client did not agree that the expansion of the day care center warranted the addition of a sidewalk. However, she said that if the sidewalk requirement were approved, she asked that her client be given six months to construct the sidewalk. 

Mr. Wheeler asked if Ms. Giles had discussed the sidewalk issue with staff before. Ms. Giles said she had not. Mr. Baird asked if the building labeled Storage in the Commission’s packet would be a functioning part of the day care operation. Ms. Giles said it would be used to provide day care to infants. Mr. Baird asked for a comparison between the center’s current and proposed capacities. After consulting with her client, Ms. Giles said the current capacity was 52 children and after the expansion another 32 would be permitted to be served.  

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

Mr. Young asked staff about bufferyards. Mr. Macpherson said a bufferyard “C” would be required and there had been “discussion by the applicant of building a privacy fence.” Ms. Giles returned to the podium and said that “when the applicant applies for his building permit, Building Regulations will require the bufferyard.”

Mr. Wheeler asked what staff felt about the applicant’s request to not construct a sidewalk. Mr. MacPherson said that staff felt the sidewalk was warranted and that if it could not be built immediately the money should be placed in escrow. Mr. Baird said that while he was generally in favor of requiring sidewalks, in this case he thought that the requirement would be “a burden on a business like this.” Mr. Edwards said he thought it might be better to table the case and let the sidewalk issue “get worked out.” Mr. Wheeler said he thought the sidewalk should be required. He asked the applicant if he wanted to table the case. Ms. Giles returned to the lectern and said the applicant wanted to know if a document signed by a contractor with a pledge to build the sidewalk in the future would be acceptable to staff.

Ms. Yendes said that, rather than requiring that funds be escrowed, it would be possible for the applicant to come to an agreement with the City Attorney’s office on a “security ... that the improvement would take place,” and the applicant and the City Attorney’s office could work out “what that would look like.”

Lawhon made a motion to “amend the sidewalk requirement so that some sort of acceptable security, one that would be acceptable to the City and to the legal department, so there would not have to be up-front money put in escrow.” One of the commissioners seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Young, Roling, Baird, Lawhon, Hansen, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: McClelland, Coltrin (recused).

Lawhon made a motion to approve zoning case Z-20-2010/COD 37. Roling seconded the motion. The motion to approve the amended zoning case carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Young, Roling, Baird, Hansen, Lawhon, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: Coltrin (recused); ABSENT: McClelland.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS

3.   PD 330 Amended                                    Larry Childress et al.
     (E. and W. sides 4100 block south U.S. 65)

Mr. MacPherson read the following excerpts from the Staff Comments section of the City’s staff report:

  1. The existing Planned Development 330 was approved by City Council on July 27, 2009.  The Planned Development permits a mixed-use residential, office and commercial development on approximately 500 acres on the east and west sides of U.S. Highway 65 north of Highway 60. The planned development is divided into four quadrants or areas of development and incorporates a step-down concept of land uses whereby the intensity of development decreases as the property is development away from U.S. Highway 65 and the “core” or interior of the development and adjacent to existing low intensity residential development. 
  2. The intent of this proposed amendment is to accommodate possible land acquisition by the Springfield-Greene County Park Board for development of public park facilities within the District. Other proposed changes to the Planned Development include changes to the development requirements, specifically for park uses, and to the required improvements for development of the subject property. The approved uses (other than the addition of public park use), intensity of use, bufferyards and requirements for Low Impact Development practices are not being changed as part of this proposed amendment. 
    • The following is a summary of the changes proposed as part of this amendment:
  • The applicant is proposing to add public park uses to the list of permitted uses within this development. For the purposes of this amendment, a public park is being defined as any public facilities constructed by and/or for the Springfield-Greene County Park Board for the benefit of the community.
  • The existing Planned Development prohibits the use of outside public address systems. The applicant is proposing to allow them when they are incorporated into the public park component.
  • Activities and permitted uses within the existing Planned Development are required to be conducted entirely within an enclosed building except off-street parking, outdoor dining areas, outdoor pools, etc. This amendment would add water activities on the river or in other facilities and any and all other public park activities as permitted outdoor activities and uses within the development.
  • The existing Planned Development has specific development limits on different types of development including a maximum of 1,800,000 square feet of general retail development, maximum 300,000 square feet of office development, a maximum of 300 units of Residential Townhouse development, maximum 300 rooms and 60,000 square feet of meeting rooms/conference space for a hotel/conference center and a maximum 100,000 square feet of mini-storage. The applicant is requesting to exempt any facilities constructed by or for the Springfield-Greene County Park Board from the total development limits of the Planned Development. The maximum development limits for other types of development will remain.
  • This proposal includes a provision for a temporary access to be provided for park property development if it occurs prior to the property within the Planned Development being platted. The access would provide access from park facilities to the public roadway system and would support emergency vehicles.

Here, Mr. MacPherson referred the Commission to the staff report’s Exhibit 2-4, which shows the possible location of an access easement. He continued reading from the report, as follows:

  • The existing Planned Development permits the developer to submit a comprehensive signage plan for the development with the final development plan. The number and size of signs generally follows what is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance however the development is permitted two development signs – one on each sign of U.S. Highway 65. This amendment would exempt signage for the park development and would allow directional signage for the park to be located on other properties within the District.  The signage requirements for other uses permitted within the District are not proposed to change.
  • The existing Planned Development requires that for each phase of the development, except for R-TH development, a traffic study is submitted to determine the impact on the public infrastructure and required public improvements. The required improvements must be assured before that phase of development occurs. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the existing traffic study requirement for uses within the Planned Development. As part of this amendment, a traffic study would be required to be completed for public park development, however there would not be any public improvements required within the boundaries of the Planned Development District. Offsite public improvements may be required if warranted by the traffic study.
  • The existing Planned Development requires connectivity to the east to the County road system and specifically states that the roadway to the east to Route J would be along a routing identified and provided by Greene County and/or the City of Springfield, but generally connecting to Farm Road 170 near Highway J. This amendment would remove the language regarding the routing of the connection and would simply require that connectivity be provided to the east as determined by Greene County and/or the City of Springfield. The routing will consider existing Comprehensive Plans and studies as required in the existing Planned Development.  The Ozarks Transportation Organization (OTO) Technical Committee recently reviewed the roadway and voted to delay any decision on the roadway until new census data is available. The amendment also changes the existing language regarding construction of a bridge over the James River to say that it would be constructed if deemed necessary by the City of Springfield and/or Greene County.
  • Construction of the U.S. Highway 65 interchange and a connection to the west to Lone Pine and to the east to Route J are required with any retail, office or multi-family development within the District in the existing Planned Development. The applicant is proposing to change the language to require construction of the U.S Highway 65 interchange and connection to the west and east and not specify where the roadways must connect to the east and west. Further, the amendment would require the connection east or west would only be required for the portion of the development being platted on the east or west side of U.S. Highway 65.
  • The applicant has requested to remove the phrase “by the Developer” in several areas throughout the Planned Development. The removal of this phrase does not assign the responsibility of constructing improvements on the City or any other entity. Typically, zoning requirements do not specify who is responsible for completing the improvements but rather just details what must be completed before development can occur. To further clarify this, the applicant has added the following language: “The public improvements required by this Ordinance may be provided by any combination of funding sources, public or private, but nothing in this Ordinance shall obligate anyone, other than the Developer, to secure a means of providing the required improvements.” 
  • This amendment would include public parks, archery ranges and river access as uses that would be permitted in flood plain areas. Any use of the flood plain areas is subject to the limitations and control of FEMA, DNR and local government entities.
  • The existing Planned Development requires the developer to grant a “Conservation Easement” along the James River to limit the development of the property along the water’s edge allowing only activities and improvements which do not damage the habitat or water quality of the river. The proposed amendment requires the developer to either dedicate the “Conservation Easement” or deed a parcel of land to the City of Springfield, by and through the Springfield-Greene County Park Board, for park purposes. The area to be dedicated as an easement or deeded to the Park Board is the same area described in the existing Planned Development. 
  • In the existing Planned Development the final development plan(s) for all uses, except for R-TH uses, are required to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation to City Council for final approval. This amendment would allow the final development plan(s) for public park development to be approved by the Administrative Review Committee. The final development plan(s) for all uses, except public park and R-TH uses, would still be required to be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The existing requirement that property owners within one-hundred-eighty-five (185) feet will be notified of the review of the final development plan(s) for development other than the public park or R-TH uses will remain.

Mr. MacPherson said that staff was recommending approval of the proposal, based on the following findings, which he read from the staff report:

  1. This proposal is consistent with the intent of the existing Planned Development to provide for a mixed-use development with opportunities for employment and living in the area with the benefit of internal circulation as people live, work and shop in the same location
  2. This proposal provides for development of public park facilities within this District and is consistent with the Growth Management and Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan which identifies the US Highway 65 and Highway 60 areas as a potential activity center suitable for high-intensity retail, office and residential use. 
  3. This amendment continues to provide for a Low Impact Development on the subject property and continues the requirement for significant public improvements for development of the property, other than for public park and R-TH uses, including construction of a new interchange on U.S. Highway 65 and roadway connections to the east, west and north.

In response to a question from Ms. Roling, Mr. MacPherson said that a public address system would only be able to be used in areas considered to be park facilities. Mr. Hansen asked about the provision whereby a final development plan for park improvements could be approved by the Administrative Review Committee rather than by Commission and Council. Ms. Yendes said staff would review such as plan and would “make sure it meets all the codes it needs to,” and that, pursuant to the city charter, it would not be appropriate for a public board to review a site plan submitted by a city department. Mr. Lawhon asked if the main change to the PD concerned allowing a park to be one of the permitted uses. Mr. MacPherson said that that was the main change but there were also some other changes. Mr. Lawhon asked if there was language in the proposal that meant that there would not be a transfer of responsibility for improvements back to a government entity. Mr. Macpherson said, “That’s exactly correct.” In response to a question from Mr. Coltrin, Mr. MacPherson said that if anything other than an R-TH land-use developed on the subject site the case would have to go back to the city council. He said that because the exact alignment of east-west connecting roads would probably not be known until at least 2012, it made sense to make the PD’s language regarding specific roadways more general.

Mr. Coltrin said that when the original PD had been approved, he had been told that the road improvements would be the sole responsibility of the developer. Mr. MacPherson said that “the responsibility for securing the means of the funding” would still be solely the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Coltrin said that to him that meant that governmental entities might be called upon to help fund the road improvements. Mr. Rognstad said that “the developer could put together a consortium somehow that would include money other than their money.” He also said there was nothing in the PD’s language that would require a government to put money into the project but there was also nothing that would preclude it from doing so.

Ms. Roling asked who would be responsible for the “temporary access” to park property. Ms. Yendes said, that “that would be a Park Board-developer discussion as to who pays for what.” Mr. Lawhon asked if a park facility might be developed before the rest of the PD. Mr. MacPherson said that that was indeed possible. In response to a question from Mr. Wheeler about whether the “temporary access easement’ might become a permanent road if the PD’s commercial development never materialized, Mr. MacPherson said that at some point the park property would be platted, and then the road locations inside that platted area would be finalized. Mr. Young asked if the Commission was being asked to approve the location of facilities shown in the exhibits in the staff report. Mr. MacPherson said that those exhibits were only presented as illustrations of possible development scenarios.

Mr. Hansen asked how accurately the “green area” in the exhibits reflected the “conservation easement” and how accurately the “flood area” was depicted in the exhibits. Mr. MacPherson said that the “darker line’ in Exhibit 2-4 represented the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Hansen asked some questions about the PD’s Exhibit 1. Mr. Hansen and Mr. Rognstad had a discussion of some technical storm-water issues.

In response to a question from Mr. Young, Mr. Rognstad said “we would like to continue to go up the James River [with trails] over time.”

Mr. Hansen asked about a passage from Exhibit 1 on page Ex1-20 (section N.8). Mr. Rognstad said the applicant would need to explain what was meant by the passage.

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing.

Geoffrey Butler, 319 N. Main, said he was representing the applicant. He said the applicant was considering donating land to the Park Board. He said his client was “not capable of” taking care of a conservation easement. He said that the tentative plan was to engage in a “two-phase donation” to the Park Board. The first phase would involve the conservation easement. That phase would also involve a donation of about six acres, part of which would “be brought up out of the flood plain for the construction of, actually, a building to house the archery activities” of the Park Board. He said the original PD does not list a park as one of the allowed uses, so the applicant wants to amend the PD to allow park facilities. The second phase, he said, would involve “the balance of the flood plain property,” which would total about “a hundred acres.” The second phase would occur after his client’s development began to be built out and his client could determine how much of the flood plain was not needed and hence could be donated. He said the amended PD would also allow the developer to finance the project using whatever funding mechanisms were available. Regarding storm-water issues and the “50-foot area of the easement,” he said “there are bluffs on the south side, and if we made that 200 feet all the way along the southern boundary, we would actually be taking 150 feet of buildable property out ... on top of the bluff ...; so we said OK, we’re limiting it to ... however many feet above the flood plain ... not to ever be any less than 50 foot.”

Mr. Young asked if the applicant’s property was on the east or west side of the river. Mr. Butler did not answer the question directly but said that the property in question belonged to City Utilities. Mr. Hansen asked about the wording of the PD’s Exhibit 1’s section 9(a). Mr. Butler said, “In effect, the area that is going to be ... deeded, actually, to the Park Board as that conservation easement, with that six-acre piece that the archery center can go on, is equal to what it would have been if you had just took 200 foot along the entire length of that.” Mr. Lawhon asked if a park tax would be voted on “next August.” Mr. Butler answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lawhon asked whether, if the tax passed and this project was covered, at that point the applicant would write out a deed to the park board. Mr. Butler said that that was correct. He added that a park development would not trigger the construction of the proposed freeway interchange. Mr. Hansen asked why the PD stated that “in all nonresidential uses there shall be no  mandated parking requirement.” Mr. Butler said that the intent was to let the applicant “figure out what [parking] we need and put in what we need.” He said they might decide to use “remote, satellite parking.”

Pam Delnevo, 3598 E. Gasconade, said she was concerned about the temporary easement and the noise and traffic it would involve. She was also worried, she said, that the temporary easement would turn into a permanent road. Mr. MacPherson said that if any commercial development were proposed, a traffic study would need to be done and the applicant would need to ensure that proper infrastructure would be installed and would have to return to the Commission for approval of the commercial development. Mr. Wheeler said that it was his understanding that if a highway interchange were not built at U.S. 65, there could not be any commercial development on the subject site.

Mr. Baird asked about the location of the access easement. Mr. Butler returned to the podium and said the final location of the easement would depend on a traffic study and on negotiations between his client and the City.

Scott Kensell, 3752 Forrest Ridge, said he was concerned that the city might be giving up some control by approving the new proposal. Mr. Wheeler asked staff who would determine what the flood plain was after earth moving had been done. Mr. Rognstad said that both the city and the Corps of Engineers would “look at” the flood plain.

Terianne Love, 4052 E. White Oak Dr., said someone at the state auditor’s office had told her that the developer would be responsible for paying for the U.S. 65 interchange at the subject site, and she had also been told that there were no formal standards detailing what constitutes a “viable developer.” She said she thought that the proposal would remove some protection from the public where infrastructure funding was concerned. She said that there would be ongoing costs to the public to maintain any park property at the subject site.

Pam Neblett, 4725 E. F.R. 170, said, “We’re running across limited information. Mr. Butler’s gotten up and recommended something. His maps are not current. You need to have current information to make wise decisions.” She said, “It’s not what you know, always; it’s what you don’t know.” She said that regardless of what government entity the money for development might come from, “that is your money; it’s not only my money, it is your money that is paying for a private project.” She said the project would cause her property to lose land value. She said that approval of a park project might be done “behind closed doors.” She said there were “environmental issues” to be considered when establishing a new park. She urged the Commission to have another meeting so additional information could be considered. And she said the proposal to reword the part of the PD document addressing the “public and private money” was “a big issue.” Mr. Lawhon asked what information had been omitted. Ms. Neblett said, “Do you know the impact to the county and the people along the roads? Mr. Wheeler said that they had “looked at a lot, a lot of issues.” Ms. Neblett said she was concerned with the quality of life. Mr. Wheeler noted that the original PD had already been approved. She said that “we’re already in disclosure,” so that if someone was considering buying property in this area they would need to be told that “you’re going to have a four-lane road possibly in front of your home.” Mr. Wheeler said that, over the years, the Commission had put in a lot of effort on this particular case.

James Louderbaugh, 4554 E. F.R. 172, said, “Let’s not let that park be the entry to the taxpayers’ pocketbook. Leave in, that the developer has to pay the same thing as you approved when you approved this PD 330.” He said he did not want his tax money used for this project.

Mr. Wheeler closed the public hearing.

Mr. Wheeler asked if staff would like to respond to any of the issues. Mr. Rognstad said that “it didn’t say anywhere in there that the construction will be funded by the developer. Generally what it says is, ‘This road shall be provided by the developer.’” He said the current wording is not typical of the wording normally used in PD documents.

Mr. Hansen said he would like a better explanation of the issue of who would be responsible for the funding. Mr. Rognstad said the applicant had requested the wording change and staff did not have any problem with making the change. He said that at some point the City might decide to contribute to the funding of infrastructure improvements because doing so would “fix a problem.” Mr. Hansen said the change in wording made him uncomfortable and, based on that, he was against the proposal.

Mr. Butler returned to the lectern and said that when he had been reading the PD in connection with adding language allowing parks, “that stuck out to me, when it said, ‘Paid for by the developer.’” He said the current document could be construed as requiring a developer to forgo using funding mechanisms that are available. For examples, he cited TIFs and CIDs. He said that “TIFS, CIDs and all of that have to be approved by public bodies.” He said there would be “no obligation for anybody but us.” Mr. Hansen and Mr. Butler briefly discussed how a TIF works.

Mr. Edwards said he did not see anything in the current PD language that would prevent the developer from receiving money from a legislature. Mr. Rognstad cited some passages in the current PD document that stated that infrastructure items should be “constructed by the developer,” with no mention of who would do the funding. Mr. Edwards said he thought that the issues being raised tonight did not warrant the level of anxiety being expressed by the speakers against the proposal.

Mr. Lawhon said he was comfortable with the proposal because of the language stating that “nothing in this ordinance shall obligate anyone other than the developer.” He also said that he thought the park would be a good addition to the proposal. 

Mr. Coltrin said that originally the PD required the developer to maintain a conservation easement; the new proposal allows, he said, the developer to transfer maintenance costs to the City or the Park Board. He said he thought the language about funding was an attempt to do the same sort of transfer of responsibility, regarding road costs. He said that during a discussion of the original PD he had asked Mr. Butler “Will the developer have to pay for the infrastructure costs?... The answer was, ‘The developer will have to pay for those costs.’” He asked staff about the Parks department’s responsibility regarding road improvements. Mr. Rognstad said that there might be requirements for Parks to make improvements off site, that is, “on the street system outside of the planned development.” Mr. Coltrin said he could not support the amended PD if it contained the wording about the funding of improvements.

Mr. Young said he thought that if land were deeded to the Park Board, there would not be a developer to take care of it. Mr. Coltrin replied that the developer would be the land owner. Mr. Rognstad said that the PD currently requires a developer to deed the conservation easement to “a land trust or other not-for-profit.” So, he said, at some point the responsibility of the developer to maintain the conservation easement would go away regardless of whether a land transfer to the Park Board occurs.

Mr. Baird asked who would decide on the configuration of the temporary access easement. Mr. Rognstad said the decision would be made by staff but a developer could appeal that decision. Mr. Baird asked whether homeowners adjacent to the easement would have any say as to its location. Mr. Rognstad said no, they would not.

Lawhon made a motion to approve zoning case PD 330 Amended. Edwards seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Young, Roling, Baird, Edwards, Lawhon; NAYS: Coltrin, Hansen; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: McClelland.

4.  PD 335                                    Showplace Cinemas, Inc.
    (3232 E. Montclair)

Mr. Wheeler recused himself from the case. The Vice-Chair, Mr. Lawhon, took over the meeting.

Mr. MacPherson said that the applicant wanted to expand a movie theater and also modify the off-street parking requirements. He said “the only real change” from the current PD to the proposed PD was the change to the parking requirements. He read the following comments from the City’s staff report:

Mr. MacPherson said that all the other requirements of the original PD would remain in place. He said that the proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said staff was recommending approval.
 
Mr. Lawhon opened the public hearing.

Geoffrey Butler, 319 N. Main, said he was representing the applicant. He said that the zoning ordinance’s parking requirements for a theater “do not accurately reflect what a multi-theater needs.” He said the applicant had done a study and found that during peak times only about 53 percent of the available seats were full. He said the new PD would have a different parking requirement. He said the applicant had acquired an adjacent lot and would build another theater there. He said the new PD would allow “two more regular theaters and one IMAX theater to go in.”

Mr. MacPherson said that the new parking requirement would be one parking space for every four seats in the largest theater and one parking space for every six seats in the remaining theaters. Mr. Butler said the number of spaces provided by his client would actually exceed that requirement.   

Mr. Hansen asked about a requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way along Battlefield Road. Mr. Butler said that that had already been done, as part of the original PD. Mr. Hansen asked about language in Exhibit 1 concerning storm-water runoff. Mr. Butler said that item had already been taken care of and that his client would be “dealing with [new] water quality issues as a part of this [proposal].” Mr. Hansen and Mr. Butler discussed “plantings.” Mr. Butler said the applicant would be moving the plantings normally put in a bufferyard “throughout the site.” Mr. MacPherson said that the Public Works department had no problem with the storm-water aspects of the proposal. 

Mr. Edwards asked if the applicant had received any feedback from the “corporate neighbors.” Mr. Butler said No, he had not. Mr. MacPherson said that he had received a phone call from Associated Grocers, who had asked to see the theater’s parking study and then did not respond further.

Roger Schlemmer, 3140-D E. Mimosa, said that the adjacent neighborhood had been experiencing three problems with the current theater: traffic, noise and litter. He said he expected those problems to increase if the proposal were approved. He said he wanted the Commission to ensure that the theater management did its upmost “to control traffic and noise and litter.” Mr. Hansen and Mr. Schlemmer discussed the plantings in the easement belonging to the Southwest Power Administration that is part of the subject site.

Mr. Lawhon closed the public hearing.

Mr. Baird asked, “At what point would a traffic study be needed?” Ms. Brookshire said that “the zoning that’s there now would allow this use and so it doesn’t really change the traffic impact that can be there.” Mr. Baird asked if the developer would be limited by “the amount of square footage they can build.” Ms. Brookshire said, “Right.”

Mr. Hansen asked to whom the neighbors would report problems with “trash blowing across the street or noise in the parking lot.” Mr. MacPherson said that with regard to noise it would be the police department and with regard to trash it would be the city’s Public Information Office.

Roling made a motion to approve Planned Development 335. Young seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Young, Baird, Roling, Hansen, Coltrin, Edwards, Lawhon; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: Wheeler (recused); ABSENT: McClelland.

 

5. PD 336                                    Paul Larino
   (NE corner of U.S. 65 & Chestnut Expressway)

Mr. MacPherson read the following excerpt from the Staff Comments section of the City’s staff report:

  1. The applicant is proposing to rezone from a GR, General Retail District with Conditional Overlay District No. 4 to a Planned Development District No. 336 to facilitate the development of a retail and office shopping center. This planned development is being processed with the preliminary plat of Hickory Hills Marketplace. The rezoning and platting of these properties is expected to coincide with the new diverging diamond interchange improvements at Chestnut Expressway and U.S. Hwy 65 which are planned in 2012.
  2. This area is located at the intersection of a freeway (U.S. Hwy 65), primary arterial (Chestnut Expressway) and collector (Eastgate Avenue) classified streets and roads as designated by the Major Thoroughfare Plan. The Comprehensive Plan’s Location Criteria for Commercial Land Use encourages the future location of Regional-Scale Commercial Centers (over 500,000 sq. ft.) on major arterials near a freeway or expressway. The proposed planned development makes many significant changes to what is currently permitted in the GR zoning district with COD #4 and which could not be accomplished under conventional zoning regulations.  
3. The proposed planned development does not have all of the same restrictions as the GR District with Conditional Overlay District No. The differences are as follows:

  1. The hardware and home improvements store use includes indoor and outdoor sales and storage which is typically found in the HC, Highway Commercial zoning district. Staff believes that this type of use is appropriate for this location which is next to a major intersection and within a Regional-Scale Commercial Center. The outdoor sales and storage use will be required to follow the screening requirements per the Zoning Ordinance.
  2. The Use Limitations in Conditional Overlay District #4 are now included in the Required Improvements section of the proposed planned development. This section will allow development to occur according to a phasing plan derived from the trips generated from each lot within the development.
  3. While the General Retail District has a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.4, Conditional Overlay District No. 4 limited any development to a maximum FAR of 0.3. The proposed planned development is requesting a FAR similar to the GR zoning district. Staff supports the additional intensity at this location; however, a traffic impact study must be provided and any additional improvements constructed when traffic generation above 20,476 daily trip ends and 1,791 trip ends during the p.m. peak hour has been reached as defined in Exhibit 1.
  4. The Additional Conditions that were placed on the Lohmeyer Property (the east six (6) acres) have not been completely carried over to the proposed planned development. The differences are as follows:
  • The condition that states “All existing trees and shrubs located on the east ten (10) feet of the property” has been modified in the PD to state “To the extent reasonably possible, the existing tree line along the eastern property lines of this District will be preserved, except for those that would interfere with the construction of retaining walls or stormwater detention basins. Any areas in the bufferyard where trees are removed will be replaced in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section I (3)(a) above.”
  • The language for a bufferyard or stormwater detention along the northeastern portion of the Lohmeyer property specifically for the property at 3662 E. Moongate Lane has been replaced with a common area/detention basin as shown on Exhibit 2 and a berm/screening with landscaping (eight (8) understory or evergreen trees per one hundred (100) linear feet).
  • There is not any language that specifically excludes driveway access to Moongate Lane; however, since Moongate Lane is a private access easement, permission from the property owner(s) would be required. Also, the proposed planned development states that access to the public street system as shown on Exhibit 2 shall be governed by the standards of the City of Springfield.

At this point, Mr. MacPherson said he had been told by the Traffic Division that they would not “allow access to ... a private street.” He then continued reading from the staff report, as follows:

  • The requirement for no building to exceed three (3) stories or fifty (50) feet in height from grade existing at the date of approval of this ordinance (within the east (6) acres) has been modified to allow maximum structure heights to not exceed forty (40) feet from the finished grade of the realigned Eastgate Avenue. The effect of this change is more difficult to determine since the realignment of Eastgate Avenue and development of Lot 1 and 15 may require major grading of the site. The height of the grade of realigned Eastgate may potentially be taller than the proposed eastern district boundary.

(Mr. MacPherson did not read sections 3.d.v. and 3.d.vi. on page 10 of the staff report. He continued, as below.)

  • The existing GR zoning district requires the maximum structure height of any structures in the district to remain below a thirty (30) degree bulk plane as measured from the boundary of any residential district. Since the adjacent property to the north and east is zoned R-SF and County A-1 (which permits single-family residential), the bulk plane would be required from these district boundaries if zoned GR. The structure height restrictions include fences, walls and buildings which can be restrictive when a site is being graded above the existing elevations. The proposed planned development has no bulk plan requirement and since the proposed planned development defines the maximum structure height from the average street grade of realigned Eastgate Avenue, there may be a difference in height from the eastern district boundary (the lowest point on the site) greater than what is allowed by the current zoning.
  • The proposed design requirements will provide some assurances that building facades in the development will display a consistent level of quality and design.
  • The proposed open space and impervious surface requirements will provide flexibility for the development by allowing the common area/detention and unconstructed portion of Rockhurst Street to be counted towards Lot 1’s open space requirements. It will also allow the twenty (20) percent open space requirement to apply to the entire development and not each individual lot. However, each individual lot will be required to have at least ten (10) percent open space.
  • The bufferyard requirements will only apply to the east district boundary and will require eight (8) understory or evergreen trees per one hundred (100) linear feet. This is less landscaping, than typically required between a GR and R-SF District; however, the developer plans on constructing a large detention basin berm and retaining wall that will diminish any effects that shrubs would buffer a site and the canopy trees would have trouble surviving given their greater size and root system. Staff believed more understory trees ore evergreens would be more appropriate in this situation. The requirement for an opaque screening, berm, fence or building wall made primarily of wood and that meets the Design Requirements of this District or combination, at minimum six (6) feet tall along the west side of the bufferyard or within five (5) feet of the west side of said bufferyard will allow the detention basin berm and any private development’s building ...

(At this point, Mr. MacPherson skipped over to p. 12 of the staff report, reading the following:)

  • (b)  Full access onto Eastgate Avenue shall be prohibited within three hundred (300) feet of Chestnut Expressway to prevent overlap of intersection operations.  With consent from MODOT, the Director of Public Works may permit limited access to the nearest lane on Eastgate Avenue between two hundred (200) and three hundred (300) feet of Chestnut Expressway. No access shall be permitted within one hundred (150) feet of another access or street right of way.
  • (c)  Chestnut Expressway shall be improved to a five-lane section from the U.S. Highway 65 interchange through the intersection at Eastgate (relocated) and shall be a controlled access roadway in accordance with the requirements of MODOT.  The nearest median opening on Chestnut Expressway shall be no closer than seven hundred (700) feet from the centerline of the northbound exit ramp off of US Highway 65.  Any access authorized within said seven hundred (700) feet shall only be allowed to the lane of Chestnut Expressway nearest the development. No access to or from the development shall be permitted onto or from Chestnut Expressway within three hundred thirty (330) feet of the centerline of the northbound exit ramp off of U.S. Highway 65 or within two hundred (200) feet of the right-of-way line of the east boundary line of the development.
  • (d)  Additional right-of-way for Chestnut Expressway shall be dedicated from fifty-five (55) feet north of the centerline of the street and additional right-of-way as needed for development of right turn lanes at the Chestnut / U.S. Highway 65 interchange as improved.
  • (e) A signalized intersection shall be constructed at Eastgate (relocated) and Chestnut Expressway.
  • (f) Fifty (50) feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the north district boundary for construction of a local street with a sidewalk on one side. The street shall be constructed up to one hundred and twenty five feet (125) from the eastern property line.
  • (g) Prior to the improvements at the U.S. 65 and Chestnut Expressway interchange being completed, the PD may be developed to a maximum traffic intensity of 12,420 daily trip ends and 1,046 trip ends during the pm peak hour.

Mr. MacPherson pointed to a graphic displayed at the meeting to show the area covered by Phase 1. He said that “further development to the east can not occur until the diverging diamond is complete and there is adequate infrastructure to serve the remainder of the development, which would be Phase 2.”

He read the following from the staff report (p. 13):

  • The proposed planned development can submit a final development plan that can be approved the Administrative Review Committee (ARC). The final development plan is required to be in conformance with Exhibit 1 (text) and Exhibit 2 (preliminary development plan) is only to be a representation of the road improvements, lot configurations, common area/detention and internal street configuration that is possible.
  • The proposed Rockhurst Street will not be required to be completely built to the east district boundary as indicated in the Required Improvements section of the proposed planned development. Rockhurst Street shall be constructed up to one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet from the eastern district boundary. This gives the adjacent property owners a buffer until development occurs to the east in the future.

Mr. MacPherson said that staff was recommending approval of the proposal, based on the following findings:

  1. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that this area is appropriate for high-intensity retail, office or housing uses which includes a Regional-Scale Commercial Center. Appropriate zoning districts would include the General Retail and Highway Commercial District uses.
  2. The proposed planned development will provide flexibility to a development and infrastructure that could not be accomplished under conventional zoning regulations.

Mr. Young recused himself from this case.

Mr. Hansen said he thought that page 11 of the staff report did not get read. Mr. MacPherson agreed, and he went back and read as follows:

  • The off-street parking requirements make two changes to the typical standards. First, a reduction in the off-street parking requirements will be allowed on Lot 1 provided it is supported by a parking study approved by the Administrative Review Committee (ARC). This will allow a particular development to only construct the necessary parking spaces and utilize the site more fully. The other change involves the existing Natatorium which will not have the former Hickory Hills School parking lot (when it’s redeveloped) for its required off-street parking. Instead, the Natatorium will be required to retain at least ninety-four (94) off-street parking spaces on-site (which they currently have to the south and west of the building) and form a cooperative parking agreement with the church or another adjacent property owner. If the off-street parking is located to the north and east of relocated Eastgate Avenue, than an at-grade pedestrian crossing facility must be located and constructed as approved by MODOT.

Mr. MacPherson said that staff thought that an existing sidewalk would probably be used to connect the natatorium and the church.

Mr. Hansen pointed out that items 9 and 10 had not been heard yet. Mr. MacPherson read those items, as follows:

  • Each lot in the proposed planned development will be permitted one (1) on-premise detached sign up to a maximum of two hundred fifty (250) square feet in size and a maximum of thirty-five (35) feet in height above the average street grade of Eastgate Avenue except Lot 1 which is permitted one (1) on-premise detached sign up to a maximum of three hundred fifty (350) square feet in size and a maximum of forty (40) feet in height above the average street grade of Eastgate Avenue. One (1) development identification sign is, also, permitted with a maximum size of six hundred (600) square feet and a maximum height of sixty (60) feet above the grade of U.S. Hwy 65. It shall be located in an area west of the relocated Eastgate Avenue and north of Chestnut Expressway.
  • Staff received a Traffic Impact Study from the developer and has determined that required improvements can be phased according to this study. The previous Conditional Overlay District No. 4 did not permit the phasing of all improvements. The proposed planned development will provide flexibility to a development and infrastructure that could not be accomplished under conventional zoning regulations. All proposed development in this planned development district are required to submit a Trip Generation Summary Table indicating the total number of trips and the trips generated in peak hour by the proposed development, as well as the total daily trips and the trips generated in the peak hour by the entire PD at that time. The phases include the following requirements and improvements that can constructed prior to or concurrently with the development of the property:
  • Phase 1:
  •       (a) Eastgate shall be constructed in accordance with a traffic study approved by the Director of Public Works.

Mr. Coltrin asked to be shown the streets that would be constructed. Mr. MacPherson said that Chestnut Expressway would be widened to five lanes; the existing Eastgate Ave. would be relocated; and an interior street would be built. Mr. Coltrin asked what the Traffic division  spokesperson thought about a certain street he pointed out. Ms. Brookshire said, “We’re OK with that intersection; it wasn’t our preferred location, but we are OK with it.”

Mr. Baird asked about some of the other intersections. Ms. Brookshire said she didn’t think that either of the intersections in question would be signalized. Mr. Rognstad said that “Eastgate and Chestnut will be signalized; the other one will be a right-in/right-out; there’ll be a median.”

Mr. Hansen asked about “page 10, number 6,” where it mentioned open space. He asked what the purpose of the twenty percent open space requirement was. Mr. MacPherson said the purposes were esthetics and to reduce pervious surface on the site. Mr. Hansen asked about the provision whereby some of the right-of-way of Rockhurst St. would be counted as open space. He asked what would happen in the future to the green space when Rockhurst became a street. Mr. MacPherson said the green space would go away. Mr. Rognstad said that “as they do each final development plan they’ll have to give us a calculation that would show how much ... total overall open space is remaining.” He said that when the development is built out there would probably be more than 20 percent open space. Mr. Hansen said it didn’t seem orderly to him to allow open space today and a street in the future on the same land area. Mr. Macpherson said that the land in question was in Lot 1, “which will have much more than the 20 percent to begin with.” Mr. Hansen said he did “not see any assurance in this report that that would be calculated as you say.” Mr. Macpherson said that the amount of land involved was small and that as each phase of the development came on line there would be a requirement to have 20 percent open space overall. Mr. Hansen said that “something exists today that could disappear tomorrow.” Mr. Hansen and Mr. MacPherson eventually agreed that, in Mr. Hansen’s words, “in the future, if they punch Rockhurst on through, then they will have to account for that open space ... in this development.”

Ms. Roling asked about whether the church would “be allowed to have an entrance off the east road.” Mr. MacPherson said that that was correct.

Mr. MacPherson said that a protest petition regarding this case had been submitted to the City.

Mr. Wheeler opened a public hearing for the case PD 336 and also the case Hickory Hills Marketplace (a preliminary plat).

Paul Larino, 1508 Melton, Nixa, said that the current zoning prevented him from doing some of the things he wanted to do on the subject property. He described some of the road improvements that would be made in conjunction with the new PD and plat. He described some of the differences between the features required under GR zoning and the features he was proposing for his PD.

Mr. Coltrin asked about the land where the current Eastgate is located. Mr. Larino said he would be donating right-of-way to MoDOT for the “new Eastgate” and, in return, “the old Eastgate will become a part of the development.” Mr. Hansen asked whether all the existing trees would be removed. Mr. Larino said that some trees would need to be removed in order to deploy a “storm pipe.” Mr. Hansen and Mr. Larino had a discussion about the types and locations of trees that would be used as buffers. Mr. Hansen then asked about the retaining wall. Mr. Larino described where it would be and how tall it would be.

Casper Jay Wynn, 5051 S. National, said he had done a traffic study for the proposed PD. He said that Phase 2 of the development could not happen until there were infrastructure improvements on the site. He said that after the build-out of Phase 1, the level of service for traffic) would be LOS “D” during the evening peak hour.

Eddie Lyons, 2004 E. Stoneridge Dr., said he was a pastor at High Street Baptist Church. He said the developer had been gracious and cooperative in the discussions on how the subject property might develop. He said his church was in favor of the proposal.  

Scott Wendt, 1359 E. St. Louis, said he was the director of business operations for the Springfield school district. He gave some history of the Hickory Hills School property. He said he had been working with Mr. Larino for eight or nine months. He said he was in favor of the proposal.

John Consalus, 497 N. FR 185, said he was excited about the proposal.

James Owen, 313 S. Glenstone, said he was representing James and Carrie Quesenberry, who live at 3662 Moongate Lane. He said the Quesenberrys “bought this property three months ago.” He said that the current PD provides for a wide bufferyard next to his client’s property. He said that, compared with the previous PD, there was a lot of “vague” and “hypothetical” language in the proposed new PD. Ms. Yendes said that the sign-in sheet for the neighborhood meeting indicated that a Quesenberry had attended the meeting. Mr. Owen said that “we’re not trying to argue that some due process was violated here,” but that he was there simply to “express our concerns.”

Mike Mellinger, 3251 S. Saratoga, said that the Quesenberrys were at the neighborhood meeting. He said he thought that the applicant was “being consistent with the intent of what was drafted originally.” Mr. Wheeler asked staff if the normal bufferyard standard for a GR zoning district would be met. Mr. MacPherson said the bufferyard would be twenty feet deep and would be placed in front of a retaining wall. Mr. Mellinger said with the current zoning and “overlay” there were certain things “that had to happen in succession,” but that that particular sequence would not work well for the prospective new business that was considering locating on the subject tract. Mr. MacPherson said that “it would be consistent with a bufferyard ‘F,’ which is the difference between GR and the residential single family.” Mr. Hansen asked about the retaining wall. Mr. Mellinger said the retaining wall would not abut the Quesenberry property; the detention basin would abut that property. Mr. MacPherson said that the bufferyard would be between the retaining wall and the adjoining property. Mr. Hansen asked about the dimensions of the detention basin. Mr. Mellinger said it was 450 feet, east to west. Mr. Wheeler asked what would be the nearest any building would be built to the Quesenberry property. Mr. Larino returned to the podium and said, “We have trees; we go up with a retaining wall; they’ll [referring to the prospective “anchor tenant”] have their plantings; then we go up with a fence to block.” Mr. Baird asked if there would be “plantings on both sides of the fence.” Mr. Larino said that, “We’ve kinda got this layered effect going on.” The Quesenberrys, he said, would be “looking at the trees, followed by the retaining wall if it’s visible ... followed by more trees, followed by a fence.”

Todd Chambers, 1393 N. Bristol, said he was in favor of the proposal. He said he thought the development might save him from driving to the south side of town looking for shops and restaurants. 

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

Mr. Hansen said he was concerned about the provision that would allow open space to “go away sooner or later”; overall, though, he said he was in favor of the proposal. Mr. Wheeler said the thought that the amount of open space would be adequate and would meet the normal zoning requirements.

Edwards made a motion to approve Planned Development 336. Coltrin seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Young, Roling, Baird, Lawhon, Coltrin, Hansen, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: McClelland.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:

6.  Use Permit 394                                    Kenneth W. Austin Trust
    (3859 W. Nichols)

The above item was tabled, as per the COMMUNICATIONS section on p. 1 of this document.)

PRELIMINIARY PLATS:

7.  Hickory Hills Marketplace                                     Paul Larino
    (NE corner of U.S. 65 & Chestnut Expressway)

Mr. MacPherson said he would like to discuss this case first before discussing PD 336, which involves the same property. He said this case laid out, in chronological order, the “events that have to occur within this platting process.”  He read the following excerpt from the Staff Comments section of the city’s report on this case:

  1. The applicant’s proposal is consistent with the City’s Subdivision Regulations and shall meet the requirements of Planned Development 336.
  1. The timeline and schedule for the subdivision of the multiple properties involved are as follows:
    • The preliminary plat of Excess School Property East will be reviewed by City Council on November 29th and December 13th. If approved, a final plat of both lots will be submitted, reviewed and approved by staff administratively (provided it meets the conditions of approval and Subdivision Regulations). 
    • When the Natatorium property is separated, then the developer can proceed with purchasing the former Hickory Hills School site (Lot 1 of Excess School Property East).
    • The preliminary plat for Hickory Hills Marketplace and Planned Development 336 will be reviewed by Planning Commission on December 2nd and, if approved, will be forwarded to City Council on January 10th and January 24th for review. If approved, the developer will move forward with the purchase of the remaining properties (High Street Baptist Church and Louis Lohmeyer Trust).
    • Between the time that a phasing plan and final plat for Lot 1 and any adjacent lots east of relocated Eastgate Avenue is submitted, the dedication by deed of relocated Eastgate Avenue, Rockhurst Street and Hickory Hills Avenue that were not part of the Hickory Hills Marketplace preliminary plat to the City of Springfield shall be recorded. This will effectively separate an unplatted portion of the church property and meet the requirements of Planned Development 336.
Mr. MacPherson then read the following from the same section of the staff report:
  1. The common area/detention basin shown on the preliminary plat will eventually be utilized for stormwater for the entire subdivision as described in Planned Development 336.
  2. It is anticipated that in the future the sanitary sewer easement shown on the plat will need to be relinquished and sanitary sewer abandoned or relocated to facilitate the redevelopment of lots west of the relocated Eastgate Avenue.
  3. The platting of this property is anticipated to coincide with the new diverging diamond interchange improvements at Chestnut Expressway and U.S. Hwy 65 which are planned in 2012.

He said the Excess School Property would be coupled with the “the church property as well as this section of the Lohmeyer Trust property.” He talked briefly about the construction of Eastgate Ave. and the dedication of right-of-way for Rockhurst St. 

At this point, Mr. MacPherson started talking about PD 336. (See above, agenda item 5.)

(This case was discussed at the same time as the case involving PD 336. Please see above (agenda item 5) for a description of how the discussion of both the PD and this plat played out. The two cases involve basically the same tract of land.)

After a discussion (see above, agenda item 5): Lawhon made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Hickory Hills Marketplace.  Someone on the Commission seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Wheeler, Young, Roling, Baird, Lawhon, Coltrin, Hansen, Edwards; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: McClelland.

8.  Mercy Commons                                    Center Court, LLC, et al.
    (W. side of 6000 block of south U.S. 65)

Mr. Wheeler recused himself. Mr. Lawhon took over the meeting.

Mr. MacPherson said that the purpose of the proposal was to request approval of a preliminary plat to divide 81 acres into a six-lot nonresidential subdivision and allow a subdivision variance so that additional right-of-way need not be dedicated along Farm Road 175. He then read the following comments from the City’s staff report:

1.      The proposed subdivision will facilitate the development of the new 48 bed orthopedic facility for St. John’s Hospital on a portion of the subject property. 

2.      Staff supports the proposed subdivision variance because the future extension of the East/West Arterial west of Phase 1 will eliminate the need for Farm Road 175.  Farm Road 175 is proposed to be removed from service and the dedication of right-of-way will not provide any benefit to the public.  

3.      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.

5.      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 pointed out, on a graphic in the meeting room, some of the changes that would affect the roads in the subject area.

Mr. Baird asked if a different map could be shown. Staff displayed a map titled “Interchange Design, November 29, 2010” and Mr. MacPherson pointed out some features of the roads.

Mr. Lawhon opened the public hearing.

Jared Rasmusson, 550 E. St. Louis, said he was representing the applicant. He pointed out some of the road changes being proposed. He said no additional right-of-way would be needed on Farm Road 175.

Mr. Coltrin asked about Evans Road and whether in its current configuration it would cease to exist. Mr. Rasmusson said that “this right-of-way will go away to a point depending on wherever MoDOT ... [inaudible].”

Mr. Lawhon closed the public hearing.  

Coltrin made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Mercy Commons. Baird seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Baird, Young, Hansen, Edwards, Lawhon, Roling, Coltrin; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: Wheeler (recused); ABSENT: McClelland.

OTHER BUSINESS:

9.  Blight Report & Redevelopment Plan                                    BSH Springfield1 and Bryan Properties
    (area of Kimbrough & Madison)

Mr. MacPherson said that the City has set up a Land Clearance for Redevelopment authority, which has helped redevelop the downtown area. He said that in order to establish a redevelopment area, “there must be a finding of blight.” He said that the role of the Commission is to review the redevelopment plan for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and make a recommendation to the city council. He said there would probably be proposals for multifamily housing and mixed land uses.

Mr. Baird asked if any of the properties in the area were occupied and what would happen in those cases. Mr. MacPherson said that the City would follow its standard relocation policies. Ms. Yendes said “there’ll be an agreement on how this is carried out” and that agreement would “go to Council.”

Mr. Wheeler opened the public hearing.

Shawn Whitney, 901 E. St. Louis, described some of the things that are considered to constitute “blight.”

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

Mr. Wheeler said he was in favor of the proposal. Mr. Coltrin said it was time for this part of the city to be ‘brought back.” ked 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.

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

ANY OTHER MATTERS UNDER COMMISSON JURISDICTION:

10.  Approval of the 2011 meeting schedule                                     City staff
    

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

Hansen made a motion to approve the schedule of Commission meetings for 2011.Young seconded the motion. Motion carried as follows: AYES: Baird, Young, Wheeler, Hansen, Edwards, Lawhon, Roling, Coltrin; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: McClelland.

There being no other items of discussion, Mr. Wheeler adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:05 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