BK&M presents new plans for University Heights, P&Z again denies approval

Despite changes made to the proposed rezoning and new plans revealed, the controversial University Heights commercial development proposal failed to gain the Planning & Zoning Commission's approval at its Thursday night meeting.

Developers at Be Kind & Merciful LLC want to rezone eight properties they own on the northwest corner of National Avenue and Sunshine Street, from single family residential to general retail. The attempted rezoning in the historic University Heights neighborhood has been the topic of lengthy and heated debate for the past year. Thursday night's Planning & Zoning meeting drew a large audience, including Councilman Craig Hosmer, with 14 residents or neighborhood representatives speaking in opposition to the change.

Developers first submitted the rezoning request in August 2022 and the project has been in limbo ever since. Most recently, the rezoning was denied by P&Z in April but after going forward to City Council in May was remanded back to the commission at the developer's request with proposed changes. Despite these, the commission denied the proposal on a 1-5 vote, with Commissioner Bill Knuckles the sole supporter and commissioners Britton Jobe, Helen Gunther and Christopher Lebeck absent.

What's changed since May?

Four main revisions have been made to the development plan, along with some other clarifications. Bryan Fisher, an attorney representing BK&M, said the changes were made based on input from city officials and staff and neighborhood residents.

The largest difference in the new plans is a height limit reduction — from 75 feet to 45 feet, which matches the height limit for the homes in University Heights. While at first the development was going to be five to six stories tall, the updated plan includes only three stories. The plans also now include at least 60 evergreen trees planted along the entire parameter where the property abuts the neighborhood.

Ralph Duda, one of the developers with BK&M, said within three to five years, the trees — which are required to be at least 12 feet tall when planted — will be 20-30 feet tall, enough to provide a barrier for the neighbors. Architecturally, the facade of the building would complement the University Heights neighborhood, he said.

Other revisions to the conditional overlay district include the addition of automobile washing businesses, pawn shops and self-service storage facilities to the list of prohibited uses and the specification that the limits on business operating hours, from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., would not apply to hotels.

At the meeting, Duda presented a new rendering and site plan for the property. The presentation outlines the development of a large food hall with a dozen local vendors, from coffee and waffles to burgers and sushi, that Duda told the News-Leader are already on board if the rezoning is successful. Additionally, a large kids' indoor playground, outdoor seating patios and three indoor and one outdoor pickleball courts are all part of the plan for the commercial development. A surface lot in combination with an underground parking area would provide 205 parking spaces.

Duda told the News-Leader the developers want to see the space become one of "social gathering for Springfield" and a place where parents can eat while children play. At the meeting, he said food halls are a trending development across the country and something that the city could greatly benefit from.

"We want it to be one of the nicest developments in Springfield," he told the commission.

Knuckles, the only commissioner to vote in support of the plans, noted that his initial concerns with protections in place for the neighborhood were addressed with these changes.

Concerns focus on traffic, preservation

Because the application was submitted in 2022 — before the approval of the current Forward SGF Comprehensive Plan — the proposal is guided by the previous Vision 20/20 Comprehensive Plan. In the plan, the northwest corner at Sunshine and National, unlike the other three of the intersection, is not labeled as an "Activity Center" the code considers appropriate places for commercial developments.

The plan notes that residential areas like this one with high traffic volume may see a deterioration in housing quality, yet also points out this is not the case in University Heights. Commissioner Eric Pauley highlighted that this was a neighborhood used as an example in the plan of one that is viable and strong and therefore should be protected.

The rezoning outlines that access to the development would come from Sunshine Street and University Street with various medians and turn lanes in place to control the flow and traffic calming measures required on neighborhood streets. A traffic study concluded that the development would not result in a significant increase in traffic. Neighbors questioned the validity of the study, however, and raised concerns about more traffic entering the neighborhood.

While commissioners did not doubt the study, some agreed that with the already high traffic count in the intersection it is inevitable that drivers will be cutting through neighborhood streets, ignoring the traffic calming measures and bringing new safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists.

"I haven't seen yet how it really complements the neighborhood more than it potentially provides a detriment to the neighborhood," Commissioner Bruce Colony said.

Commissioner Betty Ridge said the neighborhood is a valued part of the city's heritage and seeing the nature of the neighborhood erode would push homeowners away rather than attract them for the value and pride that University Heights currently encapsulates.

Donal Dunbar who said he moved into the neighborhood three and a half years ago said the development would be a substantial change that will lead him to move away.

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell," he said.

Wishes for a planned development, more guarantees

While a site plan was presented, the nature of the conditional overlay district does not allow for as much accountability to hold to those plans, in comparison to the planned development process that city staff initially recommended. In their report, city staff recommended approval of the rezoning with certain conditions, mainly focused on pedestrian connectivity and vehicle access points, along with a requirement that a final site plan be submitted for review before any building permits could be issued.

City Planning Manager Bob Hosmer said the site plan presented by Duda is not binding, but rather presented a concept of what the development could be.

Neighbors and commissioners alike pointed to the lack of guarantee that the plans would be followed as a reason to be hesitant of approval. Commissioner Natalie Broekhoven said she loved the proposed plan but wanted to see it as part of a Planned Development instead.

"This is a fantastic and beloved neighborhood, and it's difficult to gamble with something that the city recognizes as a success," she said.

What will the future hold?

Neighbors rang warning bells about the implications of commercial development coming into the neighborhood and the "domino effect" it could cause beyond this corner. While many want to see the corner return to single family residential homes, others are more skeptical of this possibility.

Broekhoven said the corner needs to be reimagined beyond single family residential, which is not viable there. But she also noted that the rezoning goes beyond the current corner and affects the use of the land for years down the line.

"The future of this corner has been volatile long before this application was ever even submitted to the city," she said. "It needs stability."

More: Judge to reconsider dismissal of Springfield's University Heights deed restriction lawsuit

Donna Hemann, president of the University Heights Neighborhood Association, mentioned the possibility of a park with art installations, though parks are prohibited under the currently proposed rezoning.

The rezoning will appear in front of City Council at their Jan. 22 meeting. This will be days after a lawsuit looking to enforce 100-year-old deed restriction on the properties limiting use to only single family residential will be heard at trial Jan. 18-19. Before then, on Dec. 27, a hearing is scheduled to reconsider a motion to dismiss the case based on the argument that the plaintiffs don't yet have grounds to sue.

Marta Mieze covers local government at the News-Leader. Contact her with tips at mmieze@news-leader.com.

This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: University Heights commercial development fails at P&Z