Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Good evening. Thank you for coming to tonight's Springfield Municipal Regional Planning Commission meeting Thursday, June the 4th, 2026. Item 1.2, if you would call the roll, please.

Bibb. Boyd.

Here.

Pfau. Here. Gregg. Here. Holt.

Here.

Borland. Schott. Here. Thomas. Here. Townsend.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Item 1.3, approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on May the 7th, 2026. Do we have a motion and a second? So moved up. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item 1.4, public comment period. Mr. Stern, do we have anyone to register? We do not. Item 2.0, under new business, the chairman, I would like to move item 211, to the top, if I could have a motion and a second to put that item on the floor to move that. So moved for discussion. Second. All right. We will move item. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Item 211, discuss and possibly take action on a zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to data-related land uses. We have a motion and a second to put this item for discussion on the floor. So moved. Second. Ms. Durham?

Good evening, commissioners. This item is a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance addressing data related land uses. Before discussing the amendment, I want to clarify that no data center development has been proposed within the city of Springfield. Staff has not received any formal applications, development proposals or inquiries regarding the construction of a data center. This amendment is proactive rather than reactive as technology related development continues to evolve. and communities across the country update their regulations to address emerging land uses. Staff believes it is appropriate to establish clear definitions and review procedures before such a proposal is presented. The amendment affects three sections of the zoning ordinance. It adds new definitions, updates use classifications, and establishes the development standards specific to data center facilities. Historically, zoning ordinances have grouped traditional computer and data processing services together with large scale data centers because both involve computers and data processing. However, the land use characteristics of those activities can be very different. Office-oriented computer and data processing services generally involve software development, information technology support, data analysis, and other professional services operating within conventional office buildings. Data centers, on the other hand, are purpose-built facilities that may include extensive server infrastructure, significant electrical demands, cooling systems, backup generators, and specialized utility requirements. The proposed amendment would establish definitions for computer and data processing services, data centers, accessory service, excuse me, accessory server equipment and related uses, clarifies that office-based computer services do not include data centers, classify data centers as extensive impact facilities that require conditional use permit approval, and establish standards addressing infrastructure, utility capacity, emergency response, noise screening, and other site-specific considerations. The amendment provides the City with a clear regulatory framework for addressing data-related land uses should they be proposed in the future. Staff finds the amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's goals of orderly growth, infrastructure protection, and compatibility with surrounding land uses, and recommends approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposed ordinance or explain anything within the draft.

Anyone have any questions on this item for Ms. Durham?

I appreciate you all putting in the effort. I think it's a good proactive set. I think we'll get a lot of this.

Can you go over again what the comprehensive plan said? There was a sentence in there.

Oh, the comprehensive plan just regulates orderly growth. It does not specifically address data in any way. Okay.

Thank you.

I'm just glad that we're getting ahead of the game. Obviously, other cities are looking at it now, and it's making more news just about every night somewhere. So I think this is a great first start. I'm glad we're doing it, and I'm proud that we're doing it.

Any other questions? Motion to approve. We have a motion. Second. We are ready for a vote.

Holt? Aye. Thomas? Yes. Boyd? Yes. Schott? Yes. Faust? Yes. Townsend?

Yes.

Craig? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Item 2.1, discuss and possibly take action for a on a request for rezoning at 329 North Main Street. Do we have a motion and a second with this item on the floor?

So moved.

Second. Ms. Durham?

This item is a request to rezone property located at 329 North Main Street from core commercial to commercial services situated near the edge of the downtown core commercial district and surrounded by a mix of community, excuse me, community oriented uses, including an elementary school, churches, a community center, and an existing preschool. The applicant intends to operate a nonprofit childcare facility at this location. The issue before the commission is not whether childcare is a worthwhile use or whether it could successfully operate at this location. Staff recognizes both the community benefit of childcare services and the compatibility of the proposed use with many surrounding land uses. Instead, the commission must evaluate whether the requested rezoning is appropriate for the property in the long term. A rezoning does not authorize only the proposed use. It establishes a zoning district that permits a broader range of uses. Therefore, the request should be considered in the context of the city's adopted plans and the future development pattern and vision for the area. Under our zoning ordinance, daycare facilities are classified as personal and group care facilities. Those facilities are permitted within the commercial services district, but are not permitted within core commercial. The city's future land use map identifies this property as appropriate for core commercial development. The core commercial district is intended to encourage mixed use and pedestrian oriented development in and around downtown Springfield. while there is significant overlap between the uses allowed in the core commercial and commercial services district approval of this request would remove opportunities for mixed-use downtown development and would introduce a broader range of service-oriented commercial uses that are not necessarily consistent with the long-term vision for the area Additionally, even if the rezoning were approved, the property presents several practical site constraints. Because the commercial services district requires onsite parking, the property would become subject to parking requirements that do not currently apply within the core commercial district. The site contains only seven existing parking spaces and given the limited size of the property, there appears to be little opportunity to substantially expand parking. Staff believes it would be difficult for many of the uses likely to occupy an approximate 3,700 square foot building to satisfy those current parking requirements. Similarly, the amount of available outdoor space on the property is limited. While state licensing agencies have indicated the building may be suitable for child care use subject to interior modifications, the availability of adequate outdoor play space could present an additional challenge and may require further zoning relief or site modifications. For those reasons, staff finds the request inconsistent with both the future land use map and the comprehensive growth plan and recommends denial of the rezoning request. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Anyone have any questions? You spoke of the parking. You said it's seven spaces there. And is a daycare facility be used as a daycare facility?

That's the proposed use, yes.

It's a proposed care. So would the people be dropping off the children at a certain point or not parking there? Is it because of? Parking for the staff, or what is that?

I don't know the exact plan for parking at this point. In talking with the applicant, they said they intended to work with the church to see if they could get a shared agreement for parking. But I don't know where that stands currently.

Are there any other requests for that use for the building? Have that been in the past?

Not as of recently. I have had real estate agents call and ask what would be allowed, but nothing recently, no.

I'll just say from history, that building has had so many different uses over the years. I don't know how long anyone has ever been there, but I can tell you that there have been many, many uses at that building. And for some reason, I don't know, they haven't lasted very long. But I guess being new to the Planning Commission, I do have some concerns about, I think we have discussed it before since I've been on it, going against something that's in our comprehensive plan i just i kind of have a problem with that and anything that goes against our future land use map i just i just don't feel good about that so nothing against what they're trying to do which i think is probably great and very much needed i just i'm not comfortable with it

We've turned down letters for the very same reason. It went against the comprehensive plan, so it's not singling anybody out. So do we have a motion? I make a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request for commercial services based on the request being inconsistent with the adopted future land use map and comprehensive growth. So I can have a second to grab the second.

Greg Jeff. We're ready for a vote.

Thomas.

Yes.

Boyd. Yes. Shot. Yes. Val. Yes. Greg. Yes. Oh yes. Townsend.

Yeah.

Motion to deny passes seven zero.

Item two point to discuss and possibly take action on a building permit request at 2077 Bessie Street of a motion and a second to put this item on the floor.

Motion.

Second. Mr.

Item 2.2 is a request for approval of a building permit to construct a replacement single family residence at 2077 Bessey Street. Zoned R7 high density residential district, the property is a lot of record. The previous dwelling on the property had deteriorated beyond repair and has since been removed. The applicant proposes to construct a new two-bedroom, two-bathroom home containing approximately 870 square feet of living area along with an attached two-car garage. Although the original structure has been demolished, the corners of the former residence were field located and verified by the code's administrator. The proposed house will occupy the same footprint as the previous structure and will not increase any existing setback encroachments or other dimensional nonconformities. As the Commission may recall, amendments were recently adopted to address reconstruction on nonconforming lots and structures. This proposal is consistent with those amendments because it allows reinvestment in an existing lot while preventing any increase in the degree of nonconformity. Staff finds the request complies with the zoning ordinance and the building permit requirements and recommends this Commission approve the permit request. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for Ms. Durham? We'll make a motion to approve. We have a motion. Mr. Pfau? Second. Mr. Gregg, are you ready for a vote?

Boyd? Yes. Thomas? Yes. Shaw? Yes. Holt?

Yes.

Gregg? Yes. Townsend? Yes. Powell? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Item 2.3, discuss and possibly take action on a request for approval of the final plat for summit view phase two. We have a motion and a second. So moved.

Second.

Ms. Sturm.

This is the second and final phase of Summit View located east of Black Patch Drive. The plaque contains 13 single family lots and approximately 0.72 acres of common area. The HOA documents for phase one have already been approved and recorded and documents necessary to incorporate phase two into the existing HOA have been submitted and reviewed by staff. Staff finds the plaque complies with the subdivision regulations and recommends approval.

Any questions for Ms. Durham?

Motion to approve.

We have a motion by Mr. Townsend. Second. Ms. Holt. We're ready for a vote.

Bibb. He's not here. Boyd. Yes. Thomas. Yes. Shaw. Yes. Holt. Yes. Gregg. Abstain. Owner. Townsend.

Yes.

Fowl. Yes. Motion passes 6-0 with one abstention.

Item 2.4, discuss and possibly take action on a request for approval of the final plat for lookout crossing phase one. Do we have a motion and a second for this? So moved. Mr. Fowle has the motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Ms. Hope. Ms. Durham.

Item 2.4 is a request for approval of the first phase of Lookout Crossing located south of William A. Batson Parkway. Phase 1 contains 67 single-family lots and approximately 3.89 acres of common area. Staff has completed its review and only one small technical correction remains that must be addressed before recording. staff recommends approval contingent upon all staff comments being satisfactorily resolved prior to recording any questions for mr on item two points so there's even less items than what's on the comments there is there just one more there's one more small and they have resubmitted i'm just waiting for staff to finalize review But every other department has been satisfied, yes.

Do we have a motion?

Make a motion to approve the lookout crossing phase one contingent upon all staff comments being addressed. We have a motion by.

Second. We have a second. We are ready for a vote.

Holt? Yes. Thomas? Yes. Boyd? Yes. Schott? Yes. Pfau? Yes. Townsend?

Yes.

Gregg? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Item 2.5, discuss and possibly take action on request for approval of a final plat for Legacy Section 6. We have a motion and a second. Somebody else's motion to discuss. We have a motion and we have a second. Mr. Fowle.

Okay. This is the last of the final plats for tonight. This plat was previously conditionally approved by the planning commission in April of 23, but was never recorded causing the approval to expire. The plat has now been resubmitted and remains substantially unchanged from the version previously approved. Staff has reviewed the plat and finds it complies with the subdivision regulations. The primary outstanding item is the completion of the HOA documents, which are currently being revised by the applicant's attorney, and staff recommends approval. All comments have been addressed on this plan.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Amon on this item?

Do we need to approve it pending the HOA or that's just part of it?

It's up to you. Mr. Martin. Yeah, if I could plug one thing out about this. One thing about this development I want to bring to the Planning Commission's attention is that this, as it's plotted, just in case this comes up later, this is not necessarily in compliance with the fire code, okay? because the fire code now, as it stands in 2026, is limited to 30 units on one entrance. This has a lot more than that. However, the preliminary master development plan and the final master development plan were done in 98, I believe, when those regulations did not exist, and that's why this is allowed. So I want to make sure to point that out in case someone raises an integrity issue later when they bring and say, well, you did it for Legacy Section 6. That master plan was done almost 30 years ago.

At one point when this was first brought up, though, I was thinking it was 40-some-odd. units our houses they were building out there when they had their original concept i mean i guess that was never approved this matches everything yeah i think the the number matches what we found from that i guess because it's going to be right in front of my house i'm not excited about all that traffic but anyway no i'm kidding a little anyway thank you mr chairman i just want to yes sir thank you

Any other questions? Has there been any mention to this development being gated?

The intent is not to gate it, is my understanding. These are going to be public streets.

And it's going to have the mailboxes all at one location?

There will be a mail kiosk, yes.

Lit.

If you want it lit, I'm sure. But I honestly don't have the answer to that.

Straight lights and everything.

Street lights are incorporated. Yes, that is a requirement.

The kiosk, the mail kiosk is a requirement. Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

They just need lights.

Any other questions on this item?

I'll make a motion to approve this pending the final approval of HOA. I have a motion.

Second.

And we have a second. We are ready for a vote.

Fowle? Yes. Craig? Yes. Boyd? Yes. Townsend? Yes. Schott?

Yes.

Holt? Yes. Thomas? Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Item 2.6, discuss and possibly take action on a request for approval and acceptance of a performance bond for Summit View Phase 2. Do we have a motion and a second to put this item on the floor?

So moved.

We have a motion. Second. We have a second. Ms. Durham?

Okay. The next four items are all just bonds. This is the first in the series of requests for approval and acceptance of performance bonds on tonight's agenda. This first one is for Summit View Phase 2 in the amount of $276,930. The bond has been reviewed by staff as an intended to guarantee completion of the remaining public improvements. which include roadway, sidewalks, curbing, utilities, final grading, stabilization, landscaping, and some miscellaneous documents, including as-built. Staff recommends approval of the bond amount and a recommendation of acceptance to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.

Any questions for this performance bond for Ms. Durham? Motion approved. I have a motion. Second. And a second.

We are ready for a vote. Shaw. Yes. Powell. Yes. Boyd. Yes. Thomas. Yes. Holt.

Yes.

Townsend. Yes. Gregg.

I guess I should abstain again, shouldn't I? Probably.

Can you state for the reason, sir? Motion passes 6-0 with one abstention.

Item 2.7, discuss and possibly take action on a request for approval and acceptance of a performance bond at Lookout Crossing Phase 1. We have a motion and a second. Motion to discuss. We have a motion. Second. And a second. Ms. Durham.

The second bond request is for lookout crossing phase one in the amount of $1,232,265. The bond is intended to secure completion of the required public improvements, including roadway construction, sidewalks, retaining walls, utilities, grading, stabilization, and other miscellaneous documents, including as-built and traffic control, I believe. The proposed surety has been evaluated by staff and is consistent with the estimated cost of the remaining improvements. Staff recommends approval of the bond amount and recommendation of acceptance by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.

Any other questions on this item?

What was that amount? Did you say a million?

It's $1,232,265. Just a small amount. Just a little bit. Motion to approve the surety in the amount of $1,232,265.

Second. We have a motion and a second. We're ready for a vote.

Holt?

Yes.

Townsend? Yes. Pfau? Yes. Thomas? Yes. Schott?

Yes.

Gregg? Yes.

Boyd?

Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Item 2.9, discuss and possibly take action on a request for approval and acceptance of a performance bond at Blackwood Farms Phase 1 North. We have a motion and a second. Motion second. Mr.

Item 2.9 is a request for approval and acceptance of a performance bond for Blackwood Farms Phase One North in the amount of $956,303. The bond will secure completion of the remaining public improvements, including roadways, sidewalks, curb installation, grading, stabilization and utility as built documentation. The proposed surety has been evaluated by staff and is consistent with the estimated cost of the remaining improvements. Staff recommends approval of the bond amount and recommendation of acceptance by the Board of Mayor Alderman.

Any questions on this performance bond? Motion to approve. We have a motion. Second. And we have a second. We are ready for a vote.

Craig. Yes. Townsend.

Yes.

Thomas. Yes. Powell. Yes. Holt. Yes. Boyd. Yes. Schock. Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Item 2.10, discuss and possibly take action on a request for approval and acceptance of the performance bond for Blackwood Farms Phase 1 South. Do we have a motion and a second for this item?

Motion.

Second. Mr. Durham.

Finally, item 210 is a request for approval and acceptance of a performance bond for Blackwood Farms, phase one south, in the amount of $663,348. Similar to the previous item, the bond is intended to guarantee completion of the required public improvements associated with this development. The proposed surety has been evaluated by staff and is consistent with the estimated cost of the remaining improvements. Staff recommends approval of the bond amount and recommendation of acceptance by the Board of Mayor and Alderman.

So have any questions for Mr. Durham on this item?

Motion to approve.

Second. And a second. We're ready for a vote.

Boyd.

Yes.

Fowle. Yes. Gregg. Yes. Hull. Yes. Shaw. Yes. Thomas. Yes. Townsend. Yes. Motion passes 7-0.

Item 3.0, under other business, 3.1, the community development director's report. Ms. Durham.

Okay, I have just a few items this evening. First, both the June and July Board of Zoning Appeals meetings have been canceled due to lack of agenda items. Looking ahead to July, staff anticipates bringing forward to this commission a rezoning request on Highway 41 North, taking property from RI, Restrictive Industrial to Commercial Services, a zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to temporary use permits, uh spring creek also known as highland reserve phase one final plat jasper fields phase one performance bond and then in reviewing the planning commission bylaws i realized there were some amendments that needed to be made to kind of bring them up to modern of modern code, so to speak. So I'm going to bring that forward next month as well. Since our last meeting, several projects have received approval, including a six townhouse unit, a six unit townhouse development at 54 North Main Street. This is across from the woolen mills. A 20,000 square foot industrial building at 1035 Bradley Drive. That was brought forth to, I believe it's to expand a pressure washing business. A 7,000 square foot commercial building on Bradley Drive. The property at 411 Memorial Boulevard was approved. That's at the intersection of 5th and Memorial. That was recently rezoned. And then the construction plans for Summit View Phase 2 were also approved. I'm still looking at other ordinance amendments, particularly temporary signage. And then we are diving into development related fees. Everything over $250 has to be analyzed and justified. And so in doing that, there is a chance that this board may see some changes to some of those that we won't know until we're done analyzing everything. Um, and I have been looking at some of the other things the board has brought to me, um, deciding requests, looking at that and trying to look at how other jurisdictions and other municipalities are looking at that. Um, finally, I've been working on scheduling ethics and property rights training right now. I'm looking at August. My thought initially was to do a combined session with the BZA. But then today when I put that out there, I've already got conflicts with the BZA. So potentially I may end up just doing two training sessions on the same thing and letting both boards decide which one they want to go to because it will be the same training. And I would rather just get them both done earlier so then we can focus on the other three hours we have to get done before December. So that's all.

Yeah. Like I know, Mr. Fout, you usually have some pretty good ideas on some trainings, some things that you've seen in the past. Anybody else has any our ideas? If you could let Carolyn know, because we need to be getting on those.

But if you want to do some online, I'm sure I can get you that, too. I don't think anybody wants to watch computer videos.

Anything else from this? Do you have a motion to adjourn?

Second.