The future of the northwest corner of National Avenue and Sunshine Street remained unclear Monday night as Springfield City Council added restrictions to a requested rezoning while punting a final vote to its next meeting in two weeks. The attempt to rezone eight lots in the University Heights neighborhood for commercial use has been the center of a years-long controversy.
In the most recent iteration of their plans, developers at Be Kind & Merciful are pursuing a strict rezoning from residential to general retail, with multiple use restrictions including prohibiting outdoor athletic courts. The rezoning request does not include a specific plan for the property, which has been a point of contention for several years.
At council's previous meeting , developer Ralph Duda suggested making amendments to the rezoning without sending the case back to Planning & Zoning Commission, as he remained skeptical that the commission's final vote would change. At the same meeting, neighbors voiced strong opposition to the rezoning, with concerns focused on traffic, potential damage to property values and lack of adequate guarantees about what the development will entail and whether it will fit University Heights aesthetically. At Monday's meeting, Councilman Abe McGull suggested an amendment to further restrict the use of the property, as the developers had proposed.
With the amendment, all vape shops, tattoo parlors, dollar stores, any marijuana retail and one-level strip retail centers with a flat roof would be prohibited, in addition to the already existing restrictions. The amendment also changed the limited business hours to 6 a.m.-11 p.m. every day, although lodging such as a hotel would be allowed to operate later. Originally, the hours were restricted to 6 a.m.-12 a.m. on Thursday through Saturday.
What does the rezoning include?
The rezoning application asks council to change the property to a general retail district, which covers a variety of commercial uses. A conditional overlay district is a part of the proposal, limiting the allowed uses and spelling out details of design, buffers and traffic flow. The COD prohibits a number of uses including drive-thrus, daycares, food trucks, gas stations and now those added through the amendment. It does allow for restaurants, hotels, medical offices and residential uses among others. In the event that a residential use is pursued, it would have to be either above or behind nonresidential uses and be limited to a maximum of 75 dwelling units. Any building would also be limited to 45 feet in height, the same as is allowed for single-family residential zoning.
In the past BK&M had pitched other plans including more niche ideas such as a boutique hotel and a food hall with pickleball courts. While the rezoning was briefly pursued as Planned Development, a more uniquely crafted rezoning that requires a binding site plan, those representing BK&M emphasized that they can't go that route without a tenant secured for the development — a search that depends on the rezoning, they said. At the last meeting, Duda noted that he currently envisions a senior living facility or mixed-use development providing housing for aspiring medical professionals. He said Trader Joe's had considered the corner but pulled back due to controversy, which the company has not confirmed.
During Monday's discussion, Councilman Craig Hosmer was the most outspoken in his opposition to the amendment, calling for more clarity on how "dollar stores" are defined and whether the amendment would also include marijuana manufacturing facilities along with retail, as that language was stricken with the amendment. Drawing parallels with the Galloway Village case, he argued that taking developer's proposals and adding that into amendments was a "poor way to make public policy," but City Manager Jason Gage said that was the process that had always been utilized for COD amendments and other council members were eager to not "kick the can down the road."
No aesthetic design requirements were added or changed as part of the amendment. Planning & Development Director Steve Childers said that while the developer had inquired about adding general terms like "Bissman" and "French Country" to the architecture standards, the city would have no way to enforce that as those terms are not explicitly defined. Childers noted that a definition of "dollar stores" had been sent along with the amendments but had not made it into the ordinance. City Attorney Jordan Paul suggested the amendment be revamped to add the definition and include all marijuana facilities but that never came to fruition.
While Mayor Ken McClure attempted to postpone the discussion of the amendment to the following meeting to give staff more time to work out the kinks, with the motion for the amendment already on the table, he was unable to do so. The council ultimately approved the amendment 5-3. Council members Hosmer, Brandon Jenson and Monica Horton voted against it.
Because the amendment is still in need of a public hearing on its own, the rezoning case will be back on council's agenda at its next meeting Monday, Oct. 21, with the public able to comment on the amendment only. This is also when council could vote on the rezoning as a whole. While in the past council has remanded the case back to P&Z for the developer to make changes rather than take a vote, this is not a requirement.
Since the previous meeting, neighbors have gathered enough signatures for a protest petition. This means that, when council eventually votes on the rezoning request, a super-majority of six affirmative votes will be required for the rezoning to go through. Councilman Matt Simpson has recused himself from the case to avoid any potential conflict of interest, due to a family member having a connection with the applicant.
More: University Heights development could have been Trader Joe's, developer tells City Council
Resident Susan Robinson said the neighbors were "blindsided" by the amendment and unaware such action can be taken without remanding back to P&Z.
She, too, compared the rezoning request to the earlier case involving Galloway, in which residents successfully forced a public referendum election that saw Springfield voters decisively overturn council's approval .
"I know that if council had passed this this evening, passed it in favor of redevelopment, we were ready to get started on the referendum petition tomorrow," she said. "So, we're kicking that down the road, too."
Duda did not comment on the case to the media after council's discussion.
After months in limbo, the controversial development also remains embroiled in a lawsuit filed by several University Heights residents against BK&M. The lawsuit aimed to uphold almost 100-year-old deed restrictions prohibiting anything but a residential dwelling on the lots. The judge sided with the developers in June, but more recently neighbors have submitted a motion asking the judge to reconsider his ruling after both parties traded threats of future litigation . The case remains under advisement.
Marta Mieze covers local government at the News-Leader. Have feedback, tips or story ideas? Contact her at mmieze@news-leader.com.
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Council sets further limits on University Heights rezoning proposal but delays final vote
Local News
