Multi-Family Development Task Force Minutes

October 16, 2008

MINUTES

Taskforce Members Present:  David Hutchinson, Robert Jones, Gene Walker, Ron Weis, Bob Hunt, Jim Hansen, King Coltrin, Kevin Roods, Glen Larson

Staff Present:  Ralph Rognstad, Ann Razer, Bob Hosmer.

Others Present:  Steven Kramer (student), Leta Mitchell (Tom Watkins Neighborhood), Evelyn Denney (Tom Watkins Neighborhood)

Ann Razer opened the meeting.  Because there were visitors present, time was taken for self introductions.

Discussion of Examples of Corridor Studies.  At the previous meeting, the task force requested that staff bring an example of a corridor study for discussion. The task force suggested a corridor study from Charlotte, North Carolina. Bob Hosmer gave a presentation on a typical corridor study from Charlotte.  He also presented a corridor study from a city in Virginia. Task force members had a number of questions and comments about transit corridors and transit service.  Ralph Rognstad explained that the local MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) is currently exploring the possibility of regional transit in the Springfield metropolitan area. The Springfield transit system is limited, by the city charter, to serving properties within the Springfield city limits. Establishing regional transit would either require a change to the city charter or the creation of a new transit authority. Increased residential densities along transit corridors will be necessary if the frequency of bus service is to be improved. Staff explained that development of transit corridors would include planning for multi-family developments along the corridor, not within neighborhoods. Staff pointed out that the Chamber of Commerce believes that before manufacturing can increase in the area, transit must be improved. With rising gas prices, many workers will depend on transit to get to and from their jobs.  Mr. Rognstad commented that the City could rezone property along transit corridors to provide for more apartment developments.

Issue #1 – Transit Corridors.  A motion was made and seconded for the task force to make a statement that they agree with the concept of transit corridor studies.  The corridor studies would be prepared by city staff and would go through the normal approval process (Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council).  The motion passes unanimously.

Recommendation and discussion on possible scoring for Opportunities and Constraints.  At the previous meeting the task force discussed whether or not to assign points (positive or negative) to each of the Opportunities and Constraints. At the previous meeting a motion was made and passed to ask staff to do two things: (1) suggest a point value (-2 to +2) for the Opportunities and Constraints and (2) to consider whether or not to continue to have points on the matrix.  Staff recommended placing a plus (+) or a minus (-) on the matrix tally sheet to indicate if review of the Opportunities and Constraints indicated it would be appropriate for staff to recommend either higher or lower densities than the matrix calculation indicated. 

A motion was made and seconded to put a plus (+) to indicate appropriateness of higher density, a zero (0) to indicate no change from the matrix calculation, or a minus (-) to indicate appropriateness of lower density from the matrix. One negative on one of the Opportunities and Constraints would result in a negative indication for Opportunities and Constraints.  The motion passed unanimously.

At this point the task force began a discussion of the wording for each item under Opportunities and Constraints.  At one point the task force discussed removing the bullets under each Opportunity and Constraint (indicating conditions necessary for recommendation of higher or lower density).

A motion was made and seconded to erase all the bullets under the individual Opportunities and Constraints.   The motion failed with 3 votes for and six votes against (a 75% majority is necessary to pass a motion).

During discussion of the Opportunities and Constraints a motion was made and seconded to strike #2, “Does the proposal support redevelopment/revitalization goals”, because it was considered to be redundant (it overlaps with #1 “How much higher density exists or is planned or approved for the area?).  The motion was approved with 8 votes for and 1 vote against.

The following wording for Opportunities and Constraints #1 and #2 was discussed.

Opportunities and Constraints #1 “How much higher density exists or is planned or approved for the area?”  The following rewording was discussed.
Increased Density Consideration.  Where densities recommended in the Vision 20/20 Comprehensive Plan or other plans are higher than the density recommended by the matrix, staff can recommend higher density.

Decreased Density Consideration. Where densities recommended in the Vision 20/20 Comprehensive Plan or other plans are not higher than the density recommended by the matrix, staff cannot recommend higher density.

A motion to made to adopt  #1 as is but to modify the “increase” section by adding the following sentence from #2, “Examples would be the south of Elm area near downtown and Missouri State University, the center city area where loft apartments and condominiums are being built, and the West meadows area where density changes are anticipated as Jordan Valley park is expanded.”  The motion was seconded. No vote was taken.  The task force members wished to see the wording in writing before they voted.

Opportunities and Constraints #3 “Is the multi-family development proposal internal to an established neighborhood developed at a lower density than the proposal?” The following action  was discussed.
            Increased Density Consideration.  Remove the “increased density consideration” section.

Decreased Density Consideration.  Remove the “decreased density consideration” section.

A motion was made to adopt the following wording for #3.  “If the multi-family development proposal is internal to an established neighborhood developed at a lower density than the proposal, then increased density would not be recommended by staff.”

During discussion two alternatives were suggested. (1) If the multi-family development proposal is internal to an established neighborhood developed at a lower density than the proposal, then increased density may not be recommended by staff.” (2)  If the multi-family development proposal is internal to an established neighborhood developed at a lower density than the proposal, then increased density would not be recommended by staff regardless of the number of points achieved.

The original motion was not seconded and no vote was taken.

A motion was made to table this issue.  The motion was not seconded.

The task force members discussed whether the new wording helps to clarify the Opportunities and Constraints or whether the new wording makes the Opportunities and Constraints more confusing. A motion was made and seconded to erase all the bullets (the “Increased Density Consideration” and the “Decreased Density Consideration” language) under numbers 1 through 9 under Opportunities and Constraints.  The motion failed with 3 votes in favor and six votes against.

The meeting adjourned at 8:05.

The next meeting of the Multi-Family Development Taskforce will be Thursday November 13, 2008, 6:00 to 8:00 in the 1st floor conference room in the Busch Municipal Building.  The first floor conference room is next to the lobby on the first floor.

Top of Page

Back to the Task Force Home Page

Back to Planning & Development Department Page