YOUR BUSINESS AUTHORITY

Springfield, MO

Log in Subscribe

The project site is located at the northwest corner of Sunshine Street and National Avenue, one of the city’s busiest intersections.
Courtesy city of Springfield
The project site is located at the northwest corner of Sunshine Street and National Avenue, one of the city’s busiest intersections.

P&Z rejects BK&M proposal for general retail development 

Posted online

The Springfield Planning & Zoning Commission last night rejected a third attempt by developer BK&M LLC to secure rezoning of a controversial corner. 

The developer presented a conventional rezoning measure, rather than a planned development, for the northwest corner of Sunshine Street and National Avenue, one of the city’s busiest intersections. The application called for a change to a general retail designation, instead of its current designation of single-family residential. 

The measure failed by a vote of 6-2, with two commissioners, Bill Knuckles and Dan Scott, supporting the change and Chris Lebeck recusing himself as a resident of the neighborhood and a putative plaintiff in pending litigation. 

Voting against the rezoning were six commissioners: Chair Natalie Broekhoven, Bruce Colony, Randall Doennig, Helen Gunther, Eric Pauly and Betty Ridge. 

In rejecting the proposal, commissioners who opposed it cited multiple concerns, including lack of harmony with the neighborhood and lack of specificity in the proposal, as well as concerns about its conformity with the city’s Forward SGF comprehensive plan. However, Scott said he felt the commission should find ways to make projects work instead of rejecting them. 

Civil Engineer Chris Wynn from CJW Transportation Consultants LLC, representing BK&M, reported the developer had hosted a required neighborhood meeting with over 50 participants, and he called it a very good one, with neighbors seemingly receptive to traffic calming measures included in the plan. 

“I know this has been in front of you guys multiple times, and in the past things haven’t gone so well,” he said. 

Neighbors questioned the decision to go with conventional zoning with an overlay district instead of a planned development, Wynn said. 

“The biggest thing here to think about is to do a planned development, we have to have a user,” he said. “We’ve got to know what the building is going to look like; we’ve got to know what the layout of the lots is going to look like, and without this property being rezoned, there’s no one that’s really going to touch this property.” 

He said 95% of the language that was in the food hall plan was moved over to the current iteration of the plan. 

“The only thing that’s missing is the site plan,” he said. “We do not have a site plan to present for you today because we don’t have a building layout; we don’t have a user.” 

The conditional overlay district, or COD, uses input from the neighborhood, he said, though he noted he understands many in the neighborhood will never be happy. 

“A lot of times, development next to a neighborhood, it doesn’t make people happy,” Wynn said. “They’re always going to have their issues, so we’ve tried to take as much feedback as we’ve received and put it into the COD to provide some sort of peace of mind if it is developed.” 

Among other limitations, the proposed COD would have prohibited drive-thrus, day cares, food trucks and gas stations. If residential uses are pursued, as permitted in general retail, it would be limited to 75 dwelling units – fewer than permitted in city code – and building height would be limited to 45 feet, equivalent to single-family residential limits. Business operations would be restricted to the hours of 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. 

In the explanation of his negative vote, Colony said a commercial development could be highly successful for the neighborhood with an appropriate transitional area in place. 

“I believe there is a win-win scenario, but it’s going to take more work and a collaborative creativity  to offer a higher level of confidence in the finished development that isn’t offered by this proposed COD,” he said.  

Colony acknowledged that BK&M has made revisions to address neighborhood concerns, but he noted he was not satisfied that the project meets some of the guidelines of the Forward SGF comprehensive plan. 

“It is my opinion that we have not yet heard a proposal for this site that checks these important boxes of harmony and character that are Forward SGF guidelines,” he said. 

Pauley expressed dissatisfaction with the level of detail in the plan. 

“Every time that this has come forward to us – and this is the third time – I always feel like I’m being requested to try to grab a hold of smoke and make sense out of it,” he said. “With every one of these proposals that have been brought forward, there just isn’t the right information or enough information in order to go ahead and make a decision that says yes, this works.” 

Broekhoven said harmonious development can happen. 

“I’ve also seen land developers propose meaningful designs and propositions within the parameters of our master plan,” she said. “I do not believe that is what is happening here.” 

Scott, who called himself a preservationist, said his role as a commissioner is not to apply his personal preference but rather his professional expertise as an architect – though he noted he liked the first plan presented by BK&M for a mixed-use development. He also stated he believed the current iteration of the plan did comply with Forward SGF. 

Scott cautioned his fellow members about the role of council in the zoning process. 

“Council is trying to whittle away some of our authority and duties and not depend on the expertise that comes with this board – an architect, a developer, an engineer, on down the line,” he said. “I think that because of that, I see a greater need for us to stand forward, be bolder in our approach and start looking for wins – looking for ways to make things work instead of ways to turn things down.” 

Prior to the vote, the public hearing included comments from some 18 residents or representatives with concerns about the plan. 

The matter is scheduled to go before Springfield City Council on Sept. 23, and that body has the authority to approve the rezoning over P&Z’s objection. In the past, council has avoided a vote on rezoning by twice remanding it back to P&Z for further review. 

On this third appearance before P&Z, BK&M had city staff support in seeking a designation of general retail for eight lots. A conditional overlay included in the proposal would put a number of use restrictions on the properties, and a notable addition to the list of restrictions was a prohibition on outdoor athletic courts, putting to rest a previous idea for a food hall with pickleball courts. 

BK&M’s most recent failed proposal had been for a food hall with indoor and outdoor pickleball courts, voted down on Dec. 15, 2023. 

This followed proposals for a mixed-use residential and commercial concept known as The Heights and a later concept of a boutique grocery store. P&Z rejected the grocery store proposal on April 21, 2023. 

Council has had one previous opportunity to vote on a rezoning measure, on May 22, 2023, but instead remanded the matter back to P&Z. 

BK&M had planned to go before council again in January but withdrew its application with the intention of crafting it into a planned development, which has more specific details than a general rezoning measure. 

The corner is located within the University Heights neighborhood and was the subject of a failed lawsuit by residents who tried to stop commercial development on the basis of deed restrictions. Judge Derek Ankrom ruled on June 14 that restrictive covenants on deeds are mostly unenforceable.

Comments

No comments on this story |
Please log in to add your comment
Editors' Pick
L&W Industries makes move to Strafford

Manufacturer looks to expand capacity with relocation.

Most Read
Update cookies preferences