BK&M rezoning decision delayed by amendment 

A vote on a zoning measure for the disputed northwest corner of Sunshine Street and National Avenue was delayed again last night, this time by the passage of an amendment to the bill by Springfield City Council. 

The main council bill, requested by developer BK&M LLC, seeks to change the corner’s zoning designation to general retail from single-family residential and offers a conditional overlay to address neighborhood concerns. 

At Monday’s meeting, Councilmember Abe McGull proposed an amendment that would further limit allowable usages of the property beyond the conditional overlay proposed by the developer. 

A conditional overlay sets up restrictions for a development beyond those connected to the zoning district. For the BK&M proposal, the conditional overlay voluntarily limits uses of the property by prohibiting drive-thrus, day cares, food trucks, gas stations and package liquor stores, among other uses. 

McGull’s amendment sought to add more restrictions. These came from developer Ralph Duda and were offered to city staff for review. The further restrictionsprohibited any marijuana products being sold and eliminated vape shops, dollar stores, single-story retail strip centers with a flat roof and tattoo centers. The amendment also would limit operations to 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily except for temporary lodging, including hotels. 

Because the amendment requires an opportunity for public comment, by council rules, a public hearing, addressing the amendment only, is scheduled for the Oct. 21 regular council meeting, and a vote on the rezoning bill is set to immediately follow. 

Councilmember Craig Hosmer raised questions about the language of the amendment – and about where it came from and if neighborhood residents were informed and involved in the process. 

“Do we define what a dollar store is anywhere in the ordinance, anywhere in the statute? How are we going to enforce that?” Hosmer asked. “What about a $5 store? What about Harbor Freight? Are all those places going to be allowed at this location under this amendment?” 

Hosmer also questioned the limitation of a strip retail center with a flat roof. 

“Do we have any precedent for that to be in a zoning bill?” he asked. 

City Planning and Development Director Steve Childers said the Duda offered the additional prohibited uses in statements regarding the first reading of the rezoning bill at the Sept. 23 council meeting. Duda then followed up with an email the next day offering to make those restrictions. Staff relayed the information to the legal department to determine how to word it. 

“An amendment was the only opportunity there was to add those changes,” Childers said. 

Hosmer asked if the information was shared with the neighborhood residents prior to the meeting, and Childers confirmed that they were not presented with a document, though they were presented with the idea at the last public council meeting. 

Hosmer also questioned whether city code addresses pitched versus flat roofs on retail centers. Childers said that is part of the nature of a conditional overlay district, or COD. 

“This is very unique to this development because it’s unique to the COD, and that’s what a COD is,” Childers said, adding that a COD negotiates these matters based on concerns of the neighborhood. 

Hosmer objected to voting on an amendment that is not connected to statutory definitions or code requirements. 

“It seems like if we’ve got a comprehensive plan and we’re planning for the city of Springfield, we should do so with forethought and plan instead of just letting things happen,” Hosmer said. 

Hosmer added that he asked for a corridor study of the area nearly two years ago. 

“We were told no, it’s too late, we can’t do it. Now two years later we’re still arguing, and we’re getting an amendment Friday about what changes are going to happen,” he said. “The developer has talked obviously with staff, people on council and it hasn’t even been communicated to the neighborhood. 

“I think this is a poor way to make public policy, and I’m not going to be voting for it.”  

City Manager Jason Gage said the process involved the amendment being crafted over the course of the week and being proposed to council, which is the way to get the issue in front of them. He conceded council may not be ready to vote, and it would be necessary to define some terms, such as the dollar store definition.  

“We have to put it in front of you, but it may be that you want to go ahead and defer the consideration of the amendment until the next meeting,” Gage said. “That will give us the opportunity to check on those things and make sure we have time to get it out to the public for general review by all parties.” 

Hosmer compared the lack of communication to a situation in Galloway Village, where action on a development resulted in city voters overturning a council action. 

“I think it would have been better for the developer and better for the neighborhood if we had had some of these conversations up front rather than behind closed doors where nobody gets good information,” he said. “That’s the same thing we did in Galloway. That’s not good for the community, it’s not good for the neighborhood and it’s not good for developers.” 

Gage said he did not see a closed-door issue but just a normal amendment process. 

“This is simply an amendment. This is the first time it’s been disclosed,” he said. 

Hosmer said he’s simply asking that the city have a plan. 

“Taking a dollar store off of something and telling you can’t put a vape shop and you can’t put a tattoo parlor – that’s not a plan,” Hosmer said. “We are a better community than that.” 

Gage said the comprehensive plan is in place and gives some guidance, and a development code is under development. 

“Without question, we’re in between those stages, and a development code being finished would help us with this,” he said. 

He noted, though, that the revision of the overlay is an opportunity that arose at the last meeting. 

“I’m totally in agreement with you – it doesn’t sound like it’s quite ready,” Gage said, noting council may wish to wait to vote on the measure. 

Nevertheless, a vote was held on the amendment and resulted in a 5-3 outcome. Voting in favor of the amendment were McGull, Mayor Ken McClure, Heather Hardinger, Callie Carroll and Derek Lee. Opposed were Hosmer, Brandon Jenson and Monica Horton. Matthew Simpson abstained. 

With the passage of the amendment, the rezoning bill will be up for a vote on Oct. 21 following public comments. 

In an interview after the meeting, Jeff Carney, president of the University Heights Neighborhood Association, referred to city staff as “the gang that can’t shoot straight.” 

“They just hadn’t done their homework at all,” he said. “They threw an amendment at the council, and what were they supposed to do with it? That’s the way most of us felt about it. They can’t get together to get this thing done.” 

He added that the neighborhood is open to change, but residents don’t want something to fail. He cited a development on the northeast corner of the intersection that has a number of vacancies, referring to Sagamore Hill Development's retail and office center.