Council considers Palace rezoning amid opposition

Ten people spoke passionately last night before Springfield City Council to share their thoughts on the rezoning of approximately 3.72 acres of property located at the rear of Chesterfield Village — the vacant former home of the Palace theater.

The rezoning to a general retail district from a planned development would allow for the use of churches. The sale of the property at 2220 W. Chesterfield Blvd. to Life360 Church depends on the zoning change.

“The citizens tonight that speak against the rezoning … are not petulant citizens with pitchforks and torches,” said the first speaker, David Nokes, vice president of the Chesterfield Village Homeowners Association board. “We are citizens that have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Chesterfield Village and pay annual assessment dues because of the vision created by the city leaders and the developer.”

Michael Cully, an attorney at Lowther Johnson Attorneys at Law LLC, represented the applicant, Dearborn Development Inc., at the meeting. He said the neighborhood was discriminating against religious institutions.

“The only thing that’s changing is a church,” Cully said, adding that under a general retail district, all uses would be allowed, including a theater. “This is about churches. In fact, I read something where one of the residents had written and said they’re opposed to any church, which I think is discriminatory.”

Drawing laughs from the crowd, Springfield Director of Planning and Development Mary Lilly Smith said theaters and churches have many similarities, when you disregard the religious component. She shed more light on why the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval.

“They’re both public assemblies, they both have set meeting times, they both have off peak traffic generation. From our perspective, to say that one general assembly use is allowed and another is not — it’s hard for us to justify it from a land use perspective,” she said.

The bill originally was scheduled for a public hearing at the May 30 council meeting, but was rescheduled after a May 4 meeting by P&Z resulted in a tie vote. Back before P&Z on June 15, commissioners voted 5-1 to recommend council rezone the property.

The rezoning bill is scheduled for a vote at council’s July 24 meeting.