YOUR BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Springfield, MO
YOUR BUSINESS AUTHORITY
Springfield, MO
The Springfield Planning & Zoning Commission had a lot to take in last night after a packed public hearing over a proposed rezoning at the city’s second-busiest intersection.
Commissioner Bruce Colony said there was, in fact, too much to take in, and he offered a motion to postpone the vote until the body’s April 20 meeting. At question was the rezoning of a parcel at the northwest corner of Sunshine Street and National Avenue by developers BK&M LLC. The multiuse development is dubbed The Heights.
Eight commission members voted – Christopher Lebeck, a University Heights resident who has expressed opposition to the development recused himself – and the result was a tie. Voting to postpone were Colony, Eric Pauly, Betty Ridge and Dan Scott, and those opposing were Chair Britton Jobe, Helen Gunther, Bill Knuckles and Natalie Broekhoven.
That’s when Broekhoven offered the motion again and changed her vote in favor. The motion to postpone the vote passed 5-3. Broekhoven’s motion was made in deference to her colleagues who had asked for more time.
Concessions
The mixed-use residential and commercial development The Heights would be the first commercial incursion into the century-old University Heights neighborhood, and more than a dozen residents spoke at the P&Z meeting to oppose the plan, with no one from the neighborhood offering support.
The hearing began with the commission first hearing from Bryan Fisher, an attorney representing BK&M.
Fisher outlined some of the concessions in the developers’ proposed conditional overlay district:
BK&M co-owner Ralph Duda previously told Springfield Business Journal the development group is now pursuing a two- to three-story development.
Speaking next at the meeting were Jordan Odem, an arborist from The Tree Doctor, seeking to save trees at the site, and project architect Bo Hagerman of Boti Architects LLC.
Several other residents presented statements of opposition to the project – first, University Heights Neighborhood Association President Donna Hemann, who said she represented the neighborhood’s 1,000 residents, and then attorney Lee Viorel, who is representing a group of 21 residents who have brought a lawsuit against the developers.
Viorel told the commission they should table the rezoning request because of pending litigation based on the existence of covenants in property deeds that disallow commercial development as a condition of purchasing the property.
He added that the general retail designation applies to developments that are at least 5 acres in size.
“They decided not to do that,” Viorel said, noting that the inappropriate size is a basis for denial.
The BK&M request to rezone is for 2.6 acres.
After Viorel’s remarks, 14 neighborhood residents, most wearing yellow T-shirts identifying them as opponents to the project, offered comments.
Legislative oddity
After Colony made his initial motion to postpone the vote, Broekhoven was quick to state her disagreement.
“I believe the applicant brought forth their information for us to review. We’ve had ample time based on the requirements of the city to provide us with the information,” she said. “They have come here; they have presented their case, and I believe you should make a motion to recommend or deny their proposal based off of the information that we received previously and tonight.”
However, following the tie vote, Broekhoven quickly spoke up to make the same motion again.
“I do know that there are half the commission members right now that are not comfortable making a recommendation one way or the other, and in all fairness to the applicant and to anyone that provided testimony tonight, I would like to reopen the request to postpone the debate and the vote to the April 20, 2023, meeting,” Broekhoven said.
Jobe asked the commission’s legal counsel whether the same motion could be offered again without change. While city code does not explicitly prohibit this, it is a violation of Roberts Rules of Order, which the commission follows.
Jobe allowed the motion anyway, and the vote was in favor of postponement.
In making the initial motion, Colony said the amount of information the commission received would take time to process. He added there seemed to be no support from neighbors, and he hadn’t heard any reasonable justification that the development represented the highest and best value for the neighborhood.
He cited The Appraisal Institute’s definition of highest and best value: "The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property that is physically possible, appropriately supported, and financially feasible and that results in the highest value."
Colony pointed out that one element of that definition – support – is absent.
Colony also noted that city staff had recommended the site be zoned as a planned development. Developers opted instead for a general retail designation with a conditional overlay district because it provided them with more flexibility. A general retail zoning proposal does not require the same level of specificity, and details can be changed more easily without requiring additional approval.
Colony pointed out that as a result of the general retail category being selected, neighbors do not have a sense of what will go on the corner.
“More flexibility comes at the price of their uncertainty as to what they’re going to see at the end of the day,” he told the developers.
Fisher noted a planned development is best when a developer knows the specific tenant that will occupy the property, and that is not the case here.
Following attorney Fisher’s statement to the commission, Colony termed the developers’ actions in purchasing several University Heights properties a gamble.
Colony said, “You went ahead and purchased the properties even though they were already zoned residential and gambled upon the fact that you’d be able to put this development here, get it rezoned and then have us determine whether or not it’s highest and best use at a later date.”
Fisher said he would not call it a gamble, and he added that his clients believe they put together an application, using input from city staff and neighborhood residents, that does represent the highest and best use. They do not believe the highest and best use for the busy corner is single-family residential, its current zoning status, Fisher said.
Three members of the BK&M ownership – Duda, Marty Duda and Brad Miller – were present in the audience but did not address the commission.
Springfield City Council was scheduled to have a hearing on the rezoning at its April 17 meeting, with a vote to approve or deny it on May 8. That timeline is pushed back until after the P&Z vote.
BK&M has postponed multiple scheduled hearings with P&Z over the course of months.
Moseley’s Discount Office Products was purchased; Side Chick opened in Branson; and the Springfield franchise store of NoBaked Cookie Dough changed ownership.
BK&M scales back design for council
University Heights residents sue BK&M
Introducing The Heights: BK&M shares design plans for busy corner while resident intends to sue