City Beat: Proposed southeast development draws debate

A development proclaimed to be the largest in Springfield's history was on the table at Springfield City Council's meeting June 29, and the size of the project was matched by the size of the disagreement about how it should proceed.

The 500 acres in question at the U.S. highways 60 and 65 crossing in southeast Springfield is owned by a group of investors led by Larry Childress, owner of Rogersville-based Hawkins-Childress Construction Co. The massive project would comprise 1.5 million square feet of retail, office and residential use, as well as a new interchange on Highway 65 connecting the two parts of the development.

The investor group, formally known as 60/65 Partnership LLC, is asking council to approve preliminary planned development No. 330, which spells out general information about usage of the property, such as how much of the land will be retail as opposed to residential, but doesn't offer many specifics about issues such as designated roads or building regulations.

Geoffrey Butler, whose firm Butler, Rosenbury & Partners Inc. was hired to design the site, said despite the size of the project, development plans call for less density than would be found in existing projects of similar type in Springfield, in part because the Missouri Department of Transportation has guidelines related to traffic impact to allow a new Highway 65 exit into the development.

"The density we're proposing complies with what MoDOT wants, so that the extra traffic doesn't ripple through to other interchanges," Butler told council. "It's really much less dense than other developments in this community."

The plan calls for roughly 25 percent floor-area ratio in the district's retail and office zones, with residential densities no higher than 13 units per acre. By comparison, the city's multifamily zoning allows up to 40 units per acre.

Butler also noted that the development would use low-impact environmental features, such as storm-water mitigation.

Neighbors of the proposed development, however, voiced concern over what they call a vague plan. Six area residents and representatives spoke in opposition to the development, saying the plans leave too much leeway for the eventual developer.

"This is not going to be a situation where we have a local developer living in this community with Springfield's sympathies in mind," said attorney Patrick Platter, representing the neighboring Forest Ridge Property Owners Association. "It's going to be someone looking at what they can get for an investment of $300 million to $500 million. And we don't think there's enough specificity in this plan to protect the homeowners."

Council could vote on the bill July 27.

Restaurant fees

Council passed a slate of city fees for fiscal 2010, including an increase of roughly 15 percent for health inspection fees for high- and medium-risk eating establishments, which caused considerable debate at council's June 15 meeting.

The new fee schedule charges $374 for high-risk establishments, up from $325, and $201 for medium-risk eateries, up from $175.

Two council members, Doug Burlison and Nick Ibarra, voted against the fee schedule because of the restaurant fee increase; they supported a failed amendment to keep the health inspection fee at the current level.

Both said the city could use money from the general contingency fund - roughly $150,000 set aside in the fiscal 2010 budget to cover unforeseen expenses in the general revenue fund - to pay for the estimated $30,000 difference between the cost of the inspections and the fees recovered.

Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky said that while she understood that no one wants to see an increase in any kind of taxes or fees, the city "has a fiscal responsibility to recover the costs" of provided services.

"We're not trying to make a profit; the inspections are clearly a service to the community in terms of public health," she said. "Nothing that the city does, no city service, is free."