BK&M partner frustrated by council’s refusal to remand zoning case

Ralph Duda, partner in development company BK&M LLC, had a request for Springfield City Council at its meeting last night.

He asked that council remand his company’s rezoning request back to the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission so that he could add hotels to the allowable businesses under the conditional overlay district he was requesting with an Office 2, or O-2, zoning redesignation for the contested northwest corner of Sunshine Street and National Avenue.

Council voted 4-2-2 to reject Duda’s request for a remand, with members Craig Hosmer and Bruce Adib-Yazdi voting against the request, Brandon Jenson and Monica Horton abstaining and Callie Carroll absent. Voting in favor were Mayor Jeff Schrag and Councilmembers Heather Hardinger, Derek Lee and Abe McGull.

It was only after the remand vote that the reason for the request became clear, and that had to do with a citywide rezoning and remapping process that would not permit a hotel as an allowable use under the designation that O-2 will be folded into, which is commercial mixed use, or C-MX1.

After the failure of the remand vote, a first reading of the rezoning bill was held at the council meeting, along with a public hearing that included nine participants. A vote on the rezoning is scheduled for the next council meeting on Oct. 20.

Going into the discussion, council learned that city staff recommend approval of the rezoning, while the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial by a 4-4 tie vote.

Chris Wynn, a representative of BK&M and engineer with CJW Transportation Consultants Inc., explained the urgency of the remand request. He said C-MX1 does not allow for a hotel.

Wynn said the conditional overlay district proposed by BK&M would allow the 2.6-acre property to be used as a mixed-use property with multifamily or single-family residential units, a medical or professional office or assisted living.

Steve Childers, director of the city’s Planning and Development department, confirmed that O-2 zoning designations were changing to C-MX1, which does not allow for a hotel use by right, though it does allow for it by a conditional use permit.

BK&M’s existing conditional overlay district, or COD, does not list a hotel use in its application, and that would have been accomplished through the remand, he said.

If the current application for an O-2 designation with a COD is approved, it would not allow a hotel. As the zoning transferred from O-2 to C-MX1, the COD would be a legacy district that would transfer exactly as it was, according to Childers.

Childers said he anticipates rezoning and remapping to be completed with a new zoning code adopted by April 1. The applicant has an option to apply for new rezoning after the remapping is complete.

Treated differently

Speaking during the public hearing, developer Duda expressed frustration with the proceedings.

“I didn’t write a speech – I didn’t think I was going to have to write a speech tonight,” he said.

He said leading up to the Sept. 11 P&Z meeting, he had planned to request a general retail zoning designation, allowing eight to 10 uses, including a hotel. He added he had been told by city staff that a conditional use permit, or CUP, could allow for a hotel.

“We were pressured by the city to go O-2 because we’re basically at the same spot – it’s basically the same thing,” Duda said. “I specifically asked staff, ‘Can we still have a hotel?’; they said, ‘Yes, with a CUP.’”

He said he learned at the P&Z meeting that current O-2 designations would flow into a new designation, C-MX1. That would limit a temporary lodging use to an inn with up to 12 units, which Duda said makes no economic sense whatsoever.

“Why were we steered to go O-2?” he said. “I was told that we could have a hotel with a CUP, when in actuality we can’t with C-MX1. We’re not going to be able to go forward.”

He said he learned from city staff that a hotel was out of the question after going through P&Z.

“I’m confused. I don’t know what’s going on,” he said.

A request this morning to the city for clarification of the instructions it provided to BK&M was not responded to by deadline.

He said the parcel is passed by 70,000 cars a day, and three out of the four corners are already zoned commercial – two of them in the last seven years.

“My company is being treated differently, and I don’t know why,” he said. “Actually, I do know why – it’s because the property values of University Heights are much higher than other areas that you’re rezoning in this city, and that’s a fact.”

He said he had proposed low-intensity uses that were appropriate for the site.

“It’s been three and a half years – hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, on top of what we paid for the properties,” he said. “Yes, we took a risk, but we never knew it was going to be this kind of a nightmare, dealing with politics. This is not a political discussion. This is what’s best for the city of Springfield, and I think we’ve come a long way.”

Neighbors remain opposed

The other seven speakers were neighborhood residents or representatives, all voicing opposition to the rezoning.

Attorney Lee Viorel of Lowther Johnson Attorneys at Law, representing a group of neighbors, said the conversation placed the focus on the wrong spot. The burden is not on residents to accommodate a change, but on the developer to explain why zoning needs to be changed.

“We’re not here to talk about what’s good or bad for the developer; you’re to decide what’s best for the neighborhood,” he said.

Resident Holly Acharya said BK&M’s purpose is to make money for its investors, but the residents want to protect the character and quality of the neighborhood.

“It feels like we’re being asked, ‘How do you want us to make money here?’” she said. “And I don’t feel like that should be our responsibility.”

Resident Barbara Ann Robinson offered a similar sentiment.

“Rezoning of these properties will not improve quality of place,” she said. “It is not up to the city, nor is it up to the neighborhood, to make this developer successful.”

Council disagreement

Councilmember Adib-Yazdi was the standout in an initial vote to move the BK&M rezoning request to the start of the agenda, a measure that passed 7-1.

Adib-Yazdi said in order for council to consider a hotel as an authorized use for the property, it would need to be zoned for O-2 first with a conditional use permit allowing a hotel to follow.

Hosmer asked Justin Crighton, assistant director of the city’s Planning and Development department, if BK&M planned to develop the property or if the rezoning was merely for the purposes of reselling it, and Crighton said he had heard BK&M did not intend to do the development work.

“He’s purely speculating on the property and trying to get the zoning changed so he can sell the property,” Hosmer said.

Hosmer also pushed for council to wait until after the city’s $720,000 Sunshine Corridor Study is completed.

“This would make a lot more sense if we continued this until after the corridor study,” he said. “Before we do a development that’s going to change the nature of what Sunshine and National is, I think we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to the community, to let the corridor study get completed and then make a determination of what the best use of this corridor is.”

Adib-Yazdi said he did not think it was the right approach to hold up the developer. He said if council considered the bill at the meeting as scheduled, the developer could put in a conditional use permit application for a hotel and be on the same track for final approvals.

Crighton, with the city’s Planning and Development department, agreed that was an alternate path.

“It just seems like we’re kind of short-circuiting the process by doing them both – by putting a use that is a conditional use only but including it in the rezoning seems like short-circuiting the process,” he said. “If we remand it back to P&Z, then it’s just going to continue this conversation, and I don’t think it’s going to help the conversation with the neighborhood at all.”

Council has an opportunity to help to make the plan more palatable for itself and the neighborhood if the process follows its normal path, he said.

“Everybody’s already here tonight,” he said. “It’s a burden on everybody’s time.”

Councilmember Abe McGull said he believed council should allow a remand as requested by the developer, as he said has been done in the past.

“If this individual is asking to remand it back to P&Z, I think we should treat him just like any other person that has made that request to this body,” he said. “I think we should adhere to the wishes of the developer and allow him an opportunity to be heard before the Planning and Zoning Commission.”