City Beat: City Council considering residential infill-friendly bill

by Eric Olson

SBJ Reporter

eolson@sbj.net

When Three Brothers Construction built a new home in an established northwest Springfield neighborhood last year, other property owners seemed to take notice. Soon, the next-door neighbors were making exterior improvements and cleaning up their property.

Builder Chad Thompson realized the connection.

"The next-door neighbors were motivated to improve their house and property, therefore compounding the improvements to the neighborhood," Thompson told City Council at its Jan. 12 meeting.

City staff sees the chain reaction, too, and proposed a bill at the meeting to encourage single-family residential infill, particularly in center city. Specifically, the bill addresses development:

on properties that are limited in size;

in areas where surrounding development has established the character/precedent for the type of development on the subject property;

on vacant or underused property; and

within structures that are deteriorating or at risk of demolition.

"This bill is intended to promote the revitalization of our center city neighborhoods by allowing for the greater utilization of some of our existing nonconforming lots and structures of record," City Planner Christian Lentz told council, adding that current zoning regulations "can leave some existing lots underutilized and thereby allow for some lots that could, unfortunately, detract from a neighborhood setting."

The bill would make several amendments to the land development code. The amendments:

allow development of existing nonconforming lots that front on a local street to be developed with a width as narrow as 40 feet or as small as 4,000 square feet;

reduce front yard setback if the existing adjacent lot is developed in a similar manner; and

reduce minimum lot depth from 100 feet to 80 feet.

Thompson said he has come across a property that is currently too shallow to build more than a few houses on, and therefore not cost-effective.

"If the proposed amendments are put into effect, it would greatly increase our ability to develop ... this property and many other properties in Springfield," Thompson said. "We are extremely happy to see this proposal."

Council votes on the issue Jan. 26.

CID zoning change

A member of downtown Springfield's self-taxing Community Improvement District is seeking realignment from Zone 1 to Zone 2. Penmac owner Patti Penny said she was incorrectly placed in Zone 1 at the formation of the CID three years ago, and she requested a change to Zone 2 at that time. Penny's properties 445 S. Patton, 435 South Ave. and 447 South Ave. sit on the edge of the two zones, said City Manager Tom Finnie.

"At the time, I told them I felt I was in the wrong district. The people that were approaching me about (CID approval) agreed," Penny said. "They thought it wouldn't be too much of a challenge to get that resolved through the legislature."

It took nearly three years, but last session the legislature authorized the change.

At the time of Penny's request, Finnie said all legal boundaries had been set and legal announcements were made.

In order to satisfy Penny's request to change zones, "They would have had to start that whole process again," he said. The process consisted of gathering approval signatures from a majority of the more than 200 property owners in the district.

Penny signed the petition with the promise that her properties would switch to Zone 2, where taxes are lower and services are fewer.

For Penny, the difference between Zone 1 and Zone 2 is $2,500, Finnie said.

According to attorney Dudley Martin of Martin & Associates Attorneys, 435 E. Walnut St., that promise is fraudulent.

"It smells bad. It smells of bribery and corruption," Martin said to council, pointing to a state statute on governing initiative petitions that says "any person who knowingly accepts or offers money or anything of value to another person in exchange for a signature on a petition is guilty of a class A misdemeanor, punishable by a term of imprisonment ... or a fine not to exceed $10,000."

City attorneys call it a zoning mistake and say they are abiding by law.

"That's a complete overstatement of the law," said Howard Wright, city attorney. "I think it's clear the state statute is talking about something different than what's happening here."

Finnie also defended the action.

"When the committee put it together, they agreed that they should have put it in Zone 2, but to go back and do that would have required an enormous amount of time and money.

"They simply said they would make their best effort to correct the mistake they had made," he said.

To CID Chair Tim Rosenbury and the CID board, it's a matter of fulfilling a promise.

"Because we are committed to keeping promises that are made to our patrons and only because we have written confirmation that this promise was made, CID supported this ordinance in a vote in November that was unanimous," Rosenbury said.

He added that the district could manage the financial impact.

Finnie made clear that if approved, such ordinances would not become habit: "Clearly, a lot of people would like to move from Zone 1 to Zone 2; it is cheaper. The difference is that this property owner made the appeal before the final vote. The committee was on record saying they would honor the request if at all possible."