Once again, Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission considered rezoning property at the northwest corner of National Avenue and Sunshine Street. Once again, it was rejected.
The planning commission voted 1-5 to recommend denial of a rezoning proposal that has been at the center of controversy for more than a year.
Commissioners were mostly unmoved by the revisions made to the rezoning application by developer Be Kind and Merciful, LLC (BK&M), citing some of the same worries they have in the past. Uncertainties around the sought zoning classification, traffic concerns and risk to the integrity of the University Heights neighborhood were all pointed out at the meeting on Dec. 14.
The case will move on to the Springfield City Council with the planning commission’s recommendation of denial, with a public hearing planned for Jan. 22, 2024.
History of the rezoning case
The rigamarole in University Heights began in August 2022, when BK&M principals Ralph Duda and Anthony Tolliver unveiled plans for a commercial development at the corner of National and Sunshine.
Ralph and Marty Duda and former NBA players Tolliver and Brad Miller have been listed as partners in BK&M LLC. Ralph Duda and Tolliver paired up in 2012 to form Anything Possible Brands, a fishing equipment company whose brands include Kid Casters, Profishiency and Perfection Lures.
Some residents’ concerns came to a boil when a landmark home — which was a point of a zoning controversy in the past — was demolished, and renderings depicted a multi-story mixed-use project featuring retail, offices and apartments. Though the developers stepped away from that concept, opposition remains to anything being built but single family homes.
Tensions between neighbors and BK&M snowballed from there, resulting in a lawsuit in which a dozen neighborhood residents asked a Greene County judge to stop commercial development at Sunshine and National for good, arguing University Heights deed restrictions prohibit anything but houses.
Though initially denied, a new judge is reconsidering a motion to dismiss the case, and whether the plaintiff’s allegations are relevant in court. A hearing on the issue of “ripeness” is scheduled for Dec. 27, with a trial date set for Jan. 18-19.
All the while, the rezoning case has been considered by the planning commission, city council members and city employees, who have abstained from enforcement of the deed restrictions, labeling them a “civil matter.”
Despite city staff’s recommendation of approval, the planning commission voted against the rezoning case 1-7 on April 20 after a contentious public hearing. Residents again came out in force to the City Council meeting on May 22. Council members voted 5-3 to remand the case back to the planning commission at the developer’s request to make changes to the zoning application. The City Council also narrowly rejected a 210-day moratorium on development along large stretches of National and Sunshine to allow time for the city to conduct a corridor study.
Since being remanded, the case has repeatedly been postponed. Until last night.
Food hall, new zoning restrictions proposed
BK&M is requesting to rezone 2.6 acres at 1739, 1745 and 1755 S. National Ave., 1111, 1119, 1133 and 1141 E. Sunshine St. and 1138 E. University St. from single-family residential to general retail with a conditional overlay district.
Under Springfield ordinances, a conditional overlay district is a zoning classification limiting certain land uses and establishing requirements within those conditions. Members of Springfield's planning staff recommended BK&M do a planned development, which would require a site plan and other standards that would be used to guide development of the property.
The staff report acknowledges weaknesses to the conditional overlay district, noting the lack of a site plan for review prior to the rezoning, and a reliance upon the required conditions produced uncertainties. The report further reads that while city staff suggested certain conditions to ensure land use compatibility, “the applicant did not commit to design details to the extent staff would prefer.”
Nonetheless, the revised application maintained the staff’s recommendation of approval, as it was determined that enough parameters were established for the application to comply with Springfield’s previous comprehensive plan, Vision 2020.
The remanded application contains four main revisions and three clarifying revisions to the conditional overlay district:
- Prohibiting automobile washing businesses, pawn shops and self-service storage facilities on the property;
- Specify that 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. business hours not apply to hotels;
- Limiting the maximum height structure from 75 feet to 45 feet, which is the same height requirement of single-family residential districts;
- Add buffer yard landscaping of 60 non-deciduous evergreen trees;
- Prohibiting outdoor playgrounds in addition to public and private parks and golf courses;
- Clarifying that a prohibition on commercial amusement not apply to indoor and outdoor athletic courts;
- Removing a condition requiring a masonry wall along property lines, thereby allowing other options, such as a wood fence, brick wall or solid evergreen hedge.
Alongside the changes to the conditional overlay district, Duda presented BK&M’s vision for the property, which has changed since first being depicted as “The Heights” in November 2022.
The developers plan to construct a food hall that would boast “over 12 local and established food vendors,” one outdoor and four indoor pickleball courts and an indoor playground.
The food hall would feature a variety of concepts — coffee, barbecue and cupcakes — two main dining areas. The 26,000-square foot building would have English Tudor and Bissman design styles and reach about 43 feet at its tallest point, according to Duda.
A site plan presented to the planning commission, though unenforceable by the city government, depicted 205 parking spaces — many underground — three patios and entrances to the development from Sunshine and University streets.
A traffic study conducted by CJW Transportation Consultants indicates the development would worsen and create a need to relieve congestion and limit detours into the neighborhood. The study's recommendations include placing medians on National and Sunshine, limiting access — namely left turns — in and out of the development. While the developer would be responsible for some of these improvements, the city would bear cost as well, as some of the needs are “already there,” according to Springfield Traffic Engineer Brett Foster.
“Growth for the sake of growth”
The rezoning case, and introduction of commercial development in University Heights was repeatedly referred to as a “cancer” to the neighborhood on Dec. 14.
“This proposed development as it stood before and is presented tonight, I believe, is detrimental to the residential area,” Sue Robinson said.
Don Dunbar said he would likely move away if the neighborhood changes substantially, adding that the proposed development is “probably the beginning” of that change.
Several residents questioned the relevance — and accuracy — of the traffic study, which was completed in November 2022, and argued that traffic problems were inevitable.
“No offense, but we don't believe the traffic report,” Ashton Lewis said.
Several speakers conveyed a different interpretation of Vision 2020 from that of city staff, arguing that the rezoning wasn’t compatible with the comprehensive plan, and questioned the lack of enforcement of a purpose statement that requires at least five acres of land for general retail. Springfield Senior Planner Daniel Neal said that the purpose statement was non-regulatory and that an exception could be made if “the zoning is based on an adopted plan or comprehensive zoning scheme.”
Residents voiced concerns that the proposed development would devalue their homes, worsen flooding problems and introduce a host of nuisances to the neighborhood, including the “pop-pop-pop” sounds of pickleball.
“A food court is going to produce noxious odors, it's going to produce vermin, it's going to produce vagrants, dumpster diving — I've seen that at Hurts Donut,” Evelyn Mangan said, referring to the donut shop on the northeast corner of National and Sunshine. “There is nothing good for the neighborhood in that plan that is being proposed, if in fact it is really this developer’s plan.”
Much of the University Heights' homeowners continued opposition to the rezoning was rooted in uncertainty. The revisions to the application, they argued, are insufficient in mitigating any sort of negative impact a development could have on University Heights.
Multiple residents pointed to the developer’s pursuit of a conditional overlay district, despite city staff’s recommendation to use a planned development, as an indication of BK&M’s “opinion of the city.”
“Riverboat gamblers sometimes lose, and I'm sorry if [Duda] made a bad choice in what he did, but that doesn't mean that because I buy something that I should be able to force everybody in the neighborhood to accept what I want to do,” Courtney Fletcher said. “That's not a valid basis for that.”
Commissioners reflect concerns of neighbors
At least five members of the planning commission were on the same wavelength as neighbors, doubling down on many of the concerns raised.
Commissioner Dan Scott noted that positive changes had been made to the development proposal, but that the uncertainty of the conditional overlay district was still worrying. He added that BK&M's site plan may have “done more harm than good” and still fell short of what he would consider compatible with the neighborhood.
Though complimentary of the food hall concept, Commissioner Bruce Colony shared similar views as Scott.
“I'd love to see you do something like that somewhere, but not there,” Colony said. “I really think that that corner is part of University Heights, it's part of the neighborhood. It should remain just part of that neighborhood.”
Natalie Broekhoven, who was presiding as chair of the planning commission, said University Heights needs stability, and that the proposed rezoning didn’t provide that.
“I like the project that the applicant presented[…] It looks great. I like that the vision that the developer had to reflect the language identity of the neighborhood — amazing. I wish it was presented as a planned development application,” Broekhoven said. “Unfortunately, this is a fantastic and beloved neighborhood and it's difficult to gamble with something that the city recognizes as a success.”
Commissioner Eric Pauly made further reference to Vision 2020, noting the comprehensive plan doesn’t identify this corner of the intersection as an “activity center,” but that it does recognize the strength of neighborhoods like University Heights.
Pauly also argued that the traffic calming measures in the neighborhood wouldn't work.
“People react so much like water, we try to find that path of least resistance,” Pauly said. “And that's one of the concerns that I see with this particular proposal is that the path of least resistance for traffic is going to lead people right into the University Heights neighborhood.”
The only vote to flip from the original 1-7 recommendation of denial was Commissioner Bill Knuckles, who solely recommended approval of the rezoning application this time around.
“I feel that the protections are in place with what we have now,” he said. “And I just think this is the best use of that corner.”
Springfield planning commissioners Britton Jobe, Helen Gunther and Chris Lebeck were absent from the meeting Dec. 14.
