Four-phase C-Street development OK’d by council 

Springfield City Council approved a multiphase development for a 7.5-acre area on Commercial Street at its meeting last night. 

The approval followed a March 25 public hearing where members of the Commercial Street business community expressed concerns about the redevelopment plans for their thoroughfare. 

Last night, Councilmember Monica Horton showed up with what she believed was a solution to some of their concerns: a motion that would have set up approval of each of the four phases of the development separately. That motion failed, however, and the original council bill, calling for approval of all phases of the project together, passed. 

At issue was a four-phase development by Commercial-Pacific Street Redevelopment Corp., headed by Titus Williams, president of Prosperiti Partners LLC. Williams’ plan for the area extending south from East Commercial to Pacific Street includes mixed-use and townhome construction and a renovation of the Missouri Hotel. Some C-Street business owners who appeared at the public hearing had offered various concerns about the redevelopment plan, for which Williams was seeking a declaration of blight and approval for all four phases, as well as a 25-year tax abatement for the first phase. Whether the project would include demolitions of existing buildings that could endanger the district’s historic designation was one of the chief concerns expressed by C-Street business owners Christine Schilling and Mary Collette. 

At the meeting, no objections were offered for the first phase, called the Pacific South Project, which would provide immediate construction of 72 townhomes. That part of the development is not on C-Street, but is a block south of it, bounded to the south by the 400 block of East Pacific Steet. 

Horton’s proposal, offered last night in the form of a motion, was to ungroup the four phases and approve only the Pacific South Project. The motion, seconded by Councilmember Craig Hosmer, failed by a 6-3 vote, with Heather Hardinger joining Horton and Hosmer on the short end of the measure. 

Councilmember Brandon Jenson raised the discussion of whether blanket approval of the redevelopment plan would ease the process of demolishing any of the historic buildings on C-Street. 

“My understanding is that it wouldn’t, in that they’re separate processes,” he said. 

Amanda Ohlensehlen, director of Economic Vitality for the city, confirmed Jenson’s belief. 

“It would not necessarily circumvent any other process that would be required to get approval on demolition,” she said. 

Jenson also sought to clarify that the buildings in line for demolition for the project do not contribute to the historic designation of the area, and Ohlensehlen confirmed that, too. 

“Based on that and understanding that the primary development plan as it’s currently proposed doesn’t impact the primary concern of residents, I don’t see an issue with moving forward with it as is,” he said. 

Phases 2-4 are in an existing tax increment financing district, meaning they are blighted under a different state statute and possibly an earlier blight definition. 

Ohlensehlen said the original council bill would approve only the tax abatement for the first phase and would require any future phases to be approved by council as either an amendment to the redevelopment plan or as a standalone redevelopment plan. 

“Based on that, I think I would also support the original kind of as-is bill,” Councilmember Matthew Simpson said. “We’re declaring an area that we’ve already recognized as blighted to still be blighted.” 

Horton said the original bill required additional clarity that was provided by city staff within her proposed amendment. Specifically, it spells out what would happen if council decides to take no action on the other three phases in the project. 

“That’s the idea, is to add clarity to the language that we are not approving or adding, as we said, even in the previous meeting, tacit approval to the future project,” she said. “I’m still thinking that it needs to be a little bit more clear in terms of what we’re approving on tonight.” 

City Attorney Paul said Horton accurately characterized the dynamic. 

“The amended bill does have stronger language and does have greater clarity as to what is being approved and not approved,” he said. 

Horton added that the amendment would make the council bill eligible for approval at the next meeting. 

“It does seem like we’re doing this a little differently than we’ve done any other blight project that we’ve done in the past,” Hosmer said. “Twelve years I’ve been on council, I’ve never seen it.” 

Hosmer urged a more measured approach to the project. 

“There’s still unanswered questions about what the impact is on the historic district. There’s still questions about what the TIF buyout will be,” he said. “To me it seems like it would be more reasonable for us to do the scaled-down version, to do what everybody agrees to, what everybody needs now, because we don’t know whether this project on Commercial Street’s even going to ever happen.” 

Williams came onto the scene in the district with his purchase of the Missouri Hotel in 2017. In the seven years since that purchase, the building has stood vacant with Williams reporting that he was waiting on approvals of designs and of the granting of historic tax credits to begin work. 

Ohlensehlen said the tax credits on the Missouri Hotel have a timeline for completion, and that may speed up the timeline that was originally shared. The Missouri Hotel is the third phase of the project, slated to begin this fall. The other phases are Phase 2, the 540 E. Commercial Project, new construction of a mixed-use building with ground-floor retail, restaurant and office areas; and Phase 4, the Pacific North Project, bringing new construction in the form of a 200-dwelling multifamily residential area with ground-floor office and retail space. 

Ohlensehlen said approval of the overall plan would help the financial feasibility of the project. 

“It certainly impacts the applicant’s ability to seek financing or attract investment partners to the development,” she said. 

After nixing Horton’s proposed amendment, council approved the four-phase redevelopment plan by a vote of 7-2, with Hardinger rejoining the majority and Horton and Hosmer voting against it.