Planning & Zoning Commission

City of Springfield Agenda Planning and Zoning Commission Randall Doennig, Chair Dan Scott, Vice Chair Bruce Colony Bill Knuckles Eric Pauly Helen Gunther Christopher Lebeck Betty Ridge Layne Hunton Regional Police-Fire Training Center November 20, 2025 6:30 PM 2620 West Battlefield Road Room 101, 102, and 103 1. ROLL CALL. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 2.1. November 6, 2025 3. COMMUNICATIONS. 4. CONSENT ITEMS. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 6.1. Z-20-2025 COD 276 1739, 1745, 1755 South National Avenue and 1111, 1119, 1133, and 1141 East Sunshine Street and 1138 East University Street (Applicant: BK&M, LLC) 7. OTHER BUSINESS. 7.1. Land Development Code Text Amendments 1 Citywide (Applicant: City of Springfield) Attachment 1 - Redline Version Attachment 2 - Clean Draft Version 8. ADJOURN. In accordance with ADA guidelines, if you need special accommodations when attending this meeting, please notify the Planning and Development office at 417-864-1611 as soon as possible to accommodate your needs. Page 1 of 93 Page 2 of 93  City of Springfield Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission Dan Scott, Vice Chair Randall Doennig, Chair Bruce Colony Helen Gunther Eric Pauly Christopher Lebeck Bill Knuckles Betty Ridge Layne Hunton November 6, 2025 6:30pm Regional Police-Fire Training Center 2620 West Battlefield Road Room 101, 102, and 103 ROLL CALL. Present: Commissioner Doennig, Commissioner Pauly, Commissioner Ridge, Commissioner Knuckles, Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Colony and Commissioner Hunton. Absent: Commissioner Lebeck and Commissioner Scott. Staff in attendance: Justin Crighton, Planning and Development Assistant Director, Bob Hosmer, Planning Manager, Daniel Neal, Michael Sparlin, and Andrew Menke, Senior Planner, and Laura Vales, Assistant City Attorney. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. The minutes of October 9, 2025 were approved. COMMUNICATIONS. September Planning and Zoning and City Council actions. - Staff recommended combining presentations for rezoning case Z-19-2025 and the Preliminary Plat of The Dell Phase II but with separate votes. Remapping: Three of five neighborhood meetings for the remapping initiative have concluded, with two more scheduled for November 10 and 13, 2025. CONSENT ITEMS. Relinquishment of Easement 968 Offer to Dedicate 111 4423 South Reed Avenue 205 South Jefferson Avenue Applicant: The Milton at Road, LLC Applicant: City of Springfield COMMISSION ACTION: Planning and Zoning Commissioner Knuckles moved to approve Consent Items (Relinquishment of Easement 968 and Offer to Dedicate 111); Commissioner Colony seconded the motion. It Passed with the following vote: Ayes: Commissioner Doennig, Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Colony, Commissioner Ridge, Commissioner Hunton, Commissioner Pauly and Commissioner Knuckles. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Lebeck. Abstain: None. COMMISSION ACTION: (combine presentations) Planning and Zoning Commissioner Knuckles moved to combine presentations for Z-19-2025 and Preliminary Plat of The Dell Phase II, but with two separate votes; Commissioner Colony seconded the motion. It Passed with the following vote: Ayes: Commissioner Doennig, Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Colony, Commissioner Ridge, Commissioner Hunton, Commissioner Pauly and Commissioner Knuckles. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Lebeck. Abstain: None. Page 3 of 93 UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Z-19-2025 3907 South York Avenue and 4000 South Jonathan Avenue Applicant: Boehm Family Trust and Wire Road Development, LLC Mr. Sparlin stated that this is a request to rezone approximately 14.46 acres from County Plot Assignment District #2125 and County Plot Assignment District #1284 to R-TH, Residential Townhouse District. Commissioner Doennig opened the public hearing. Mr. David Shannon, 8689 Gourley Rd, Mountain Grove and here to answer any questions. Mr. Mark Grieshaber, 3926 W. Kinsley Street, expressed concerns about increased stormwater runoff and flooding into Wilson's Creek, which already overflows its banks during heavy rains, potentially impacting property values. Requested stormwater officials assess the creek for widening or other improvements. Commission members asked staff if they have checked into the houses already existing with the stream buffer and staff noted that those homes are outside of city limits, but when the development comes through the public improvement process that they will essentially have to capture their stormwater and route it to the stream and will work with the county. Ms. Nancy Jensen, 4066 S. York Avenue, echoed concerns about flooding, providing examples of erosion and past experiences where stormwater issues were not fully resolved by previous developments (Silverleaf). Emphasized existing flood issues impacting their properties, some of which are outside city limits but directly affected. Ms. Sharon Evans, 3961W. Maplewood Street expressed her concerns for the flooding and has had erosion in her side yard next to the woods. Commissioner Doennig closed the public hearing. Commission members asked for the representative to come back to the podium to make sure he is aware of the residents' stormwater concerns and with staff assuring that the developer is required to control runoff to prevent exacerbation and will conduct downstream analysis. COMMISSION ACTION: Planning and Zoning Commissioner Knuckles motioned to approve Z-19-2025. Commissioner Pauly seconded the motion. It Passed with the following vote: Ayes: Commissioner Doennig, Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Colony, Commissioner Ridge, Commissioner Hunton, Commissioner Pauly and Commissioner Knuckles. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Lebeck. Abstain: None. Preliminary Plat of The Dell Phase II 3907 South York Avenue and 4000 South Jonathan Avenue. Applicant: Boehm Family Trust and Wire Road Development, LLC Mr. Menke stated that this is a request to approve a preliminary plat for a 21-lot residential subdivision. Commissioner Knuckles asked about the no build area and how will it be addressed. Page 4 of 93 Mr. Joe Codichini stated that this is the identified cave area, for the preliminary plat they marked the center of the cave opening and then established a 100-foot-wide buffer around it. As part of the public improvement plan, a geotechnical report will be provided that includes a survey of the cave area. He also noted that if it is buildable, that the karst feature buffer zone will be modified, or other protections be put into place. Commissioner Colony asked for clarification on the existing alignment of Jonathan Avenue and if that area needs to be avoided. Mr. Joe Codichini stated that if the geotechnical report determines that the area needs to be avoided then Jonthan Avenue will be routed around it. Commissioner Doennig opened the public hearing. Mr. David Shannon, 8689 Gourley Rd, Mountain Grove and here to answer any questions. Ms. Nancy Jensen, 4066 S. York Avenue, echoed concerns about flooding, providing examples of erosion and past experiences where stormwater issues were not fully resolved by previous developments (Silverleaf). Emphasized existing flood issues impacting their properties, some of which are outside city limits but directly affected. Ms. Sharon Evans, 3961W. Maplewood Street expressed her concerns for the flooding and has had erosion in her side yard next to the woods. Commissioner Doennig closed the public hearing. Commission members asked for the representative to come back to the podium to make sure he is aware of the residents' stormwater concerns and with staff assuring that the developer is required to control runoff to prevent exacerbation and will conduct downstream analysis. COMMISSION ACTION: Planning and Zoning Commissioner Knuckles motioned to approve Preliminary Plat of The Dell Phase II. Commissioner Pauly seconded the motion. It Passed with the following vote: Ayes: Commissioner Doennig, Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Colony, Commissioner Ridge, Commissioner Hunton, Commissioner Pauly and Commissioner Knuckles. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Lebeck. Abstain: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS. Z-23-2025 COD 275 1313, 1317, 1319, 1321, 1327, 1331 & 1333 North Lyon Avenue and 505, 513 & 515 West Calhoun Street Applicant: Central Assembly of God Church Mr. Neal stated that this is a request to rezone approximately 1.81 acres of property from R-SF, Single-Family Residential District and PD, Planned Development No. 265 to CC, Center City District with Conditional Overlay District No. 275. Commissioner members asked what the building is used for at 1321 N. Lyon Avenue and were told it is their community center. Commissioner Doennig opened the public hearing. Page 5 of 93 Mr. Billy Kimmons, 1722 S. Luster Avenue, reiterated the focus on rezoning for consolidating church properties and noted the traffic concerns from the new school building nearby led to discussions about improved pedestrian/vehicular circulation and potential Lyon Avenue closure. He also confirmed severe parking shortages, especially on Sundays (only 7 empty spaces last Sunday), and existing parking is shared with Pipkin Middle School, Assemblies of God National Office, Cox North Hospital, and Greene County. The new parking is intended for the church and other neighboring groups, and no existing parking will be demolished. Commissioner members inquired about the use of the activity center (gymnasium, youth activities) and current parking capacity and it was noted that Wednesday and Sunday should be their highest activity. Mr. Carter Daniel, 1964 E. Burntwood Drive and is the executive paster, noting that they share parking lots and have agreements with several organizations to use their parking spaces. Commissioner Doennig closed the public hearing. Commissioner Pauly expressed concern that turning existing residential lots into a parking lot, despite the church's parking needs, might not be the "best use" of the property for addressing city housing needs. COMMISSION ACTION: Planning and Zoning Commissioner Knuckles motioned to approve Z-23-2025 COD 275. Commissioner Pauly seconded the motion. It Passed with the following vote: Ayes: Commissioner Doennig, Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Ridge, Commissioner Hunton, and Commissioner Knuckles. Nays: Commissioner Pauly and Commissioner Colony. Absent: Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Lebeck. Abstain: None. Z-24-2025 COD 277 4001 West Chestnut Expressway Applicant: Chestnut Self Storage, LLC Mr. Sparlin stated that this is a request to rezone approximately 5.4 from GM, General Manufacturing District and HC, Highway Commercial District to R-LD, Low-Density Multifamily Residential District with Conditional Overlay District No. 277. Mr. Sparlin also mentioned that staff became aware that some comments that appear in the packet that's posted online, and those comments have been provided tonight and will be forwarded to City Council. He stated that staff does treat those comments very seriously. Commission members inquired about GM zoning activities (intense industrial uses), surrounding residential zoning, and the "no-build" stream buffer (100 ft wide) and raised concerns about single access from Chestnut Expressway for all 59 units and potential traffic implications. Commissioner Doennig opened the public hearing. Mr. David Bodeen, 304 W. Erie Street, believes RLD is a "neighborhood friendly change" and less intense than current GM zoning and the proposed density is 6.5 units/acre (36 units total, 8 quadplexes, 2 duplexes), significantly below the 11 units/acre limit. The 100 ft stream buffer will be a natural "no-go zone," except for a driveway and utility connections and acknowledged ideal desire for more access points but is landlocked. Fire access and turnarounds meet requirements. He also clarified that proposed buildings are two-story, like existing quadplexes to the east but at lower density and confirmed no intent for storage units, which were previously advertised by a former owner. The highway commercial portion (fronting Chestnut) is owned by Page 6 of 93 the same entity but is not being rezoned; it will house a roofing company. Both the residential and commercial sections will share the single existing driveway access to Chestnut Expressway (MoDOT's jurisdiction, no new driveways allowed). Mr. James Holton, 505 N. Orchard Crest Avenue, stated that his major concerns are about traffic and highlighted existing heavy traffic on Chestnut Expressway from an industrial park, detour routes, and busy Casey's. Worried about increased danger, lack of recent traffic studies, and declining property values from this and nearby low-income developments. Believed the developer was not being clear about plans (heard "storage units" and "warehouse"). Ms. Brenda Elliott, 1141 E. Woodlane Street, noted concern about air pollution (diesel trucks from ABC Roofing), water runoff, noise, groundwater pollution, and excessive traffic. Also stated that her opposing comment card was initially missing from the packet. Mr. Joe Drake, 4057 W. Chestnut Expressway, not opposed to development but questioned the single access point for both commercial (ABC Roofing) and residential traffic and raised concerns about school bus traffic in the area and potential problems at the intersection. Staff noted that Chestnut Expressway is MoDOT’s and it's an expressway under state code and private access to an expressway is not allowed, so it would only come through the MoDOT if they allowed it. Another driveway would not meet MoDOT’s spacing requirements the developer was told that both lots that exist today will be required to share the existing access that's already there. Commissioner Doennig closed the public hearing. Commission members emphasized that the current GM zoning allows for much higher-intensity industrial uses without needing commission approval, while the gray "island" of GM zoning remains (not under purview for this case), rezoning to RLD with a limited density represents a "better option long-term" than what could otherwise be built. COMMISSION ACTION: Planning and Zoning Commissioner Knuckles motioned to approve Z-24-2025 COD 277. Commissioner Pauly seconded the motion. It Passed with the following vote: Ayes: Commissioner Doennig, Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Colony, Commissioner Ridge, Commissioner Hunton, Commissioner Pauly and Commissioner Knuckles. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Lebeck. Abstain: None. Z-25-2025 COD 278 517 East Calhoun Street and 1312 North Benton Avenue Applicant: Drury University Mr. Sparlin stated that this is a request to rezone approximately 0.73 acres of property from R-SF, Residential Single-family District and Mid-Town Urban Conservation District No. 3 to O-1, Office District and establishing Conditional Overlay District No. 278 and Mid-Town Urban Conservation District No. 3. Commission members inquired about the specific prohibitions in COD 278 and confirmation that the COD would remain with the property after future remapping to C-MX1. Commissioner Doennig opened the public hearing. Mr. Matt Miller, 4609 E. Bittersweet Way, and here to answer any questions. Page 7 of 93 Commissioner Doennig closed the public hearing. Commission members commended staff, applicant, Drury University, and the neighborhood association for collaborative efforts in reaching a mutually agreeable solution. COMMISSION ACTION: Planning and Zoning Commissioner Knuckles motioned to approve Z-25-2025 COD 278. Commissioner Pauly seconded the motion. It Passed with the following vote: Ayes: Commissioner Doennig, Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Colony, Commissioner Ridge, Commissioner Hunton, Commissioner Pauly and Commissioner Knuckles. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Lebeck. Abstain: None. Conditional Use Permit 484 4545 South Lyon Avenue Applicant: TKG-RKS Joint Venture, LLC Mr. Neal stated that this is a request to permit an automobile service garage within a GR, General Retail District. Commissioner Doennig opened the public hearing. Mr. Todd Richards, 1391 Corporate Drive, expressed gratitude to staff and the applicant's (Dobbs) enthusiasm to be part of the community. Commissioner Doennig closed the public hearing. COMMISSION ACTION: Planning and Zoning Commissioner Knuckles motioned to approve Conditional Use Permit 484. Commissioner Pauly seconded the motion. It Passed with the following vote: Ayes: Commissioner Doennig, Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Colony, Commissioner Ridge, Commissioner Hunton, Commissioner Pauly and Commissioner Knuckles. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Lebeck. Abstain: None. Preliminary Plat of Sky Light Surface Park 1900 North Le Compte Road Applicant: Springfield Underground, Inc. Mr. Andrew Menke states that this is a request to approve a preliminary plat for a 3-lot subdivision. He noted that in 2023 a different plat by the same name and area was approved, but expired June 2025. Commissioner Doennig opened the public hearing. Mr. Jason Clark, 1631 W. Elfindale and here to answer any questions. Commissioner Doennig closed the public hearing. COMMISSION ACTION: Planning and Zoning Commissioner Knuckles motioned to approve Preliminary Plat of Sky Light Surface Park. Commissioner Colony seconded the motion. It Passed with the following vote: Ayes: Commissioner Page 8 of 93 Doennig, Commissioner Gunther, Commissioner Colony, Commissioner Ridge, Commissioner Hunton, Commissioner Pauly and Commissioner Knuckles. Nays: None. Absent: Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Lebeck. Abstain: None. OTHER BUSINESS. ADJOURN. Page 9 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT PROJECT INFORMATION Case Number: Z-20-2025 with Conditional Overlay District No. 276 Location: 1739, 1745 and 1755 S. National Avenue and 1138 E. University Street and 1111, 1119, 1133 and 1141 E. Sunshine Street Total Acres: 2.6 acres Applicant: BK&M, LLC Existing Land Use: Vacant lots and existing single-family houses Neighborhood Meeting: August 21, 2025 Planning and Zoning November 20, 2025 Commission: City Council: December 15, 2025 Public Notification: Mail, posted property, and legal in Springfield News-Leader Staff: Daniel Neal, Senior Planner Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval Proposed motion: I move to recommend approval of rezoning case Z-20-2025 with Conditional Overlay District No. 276 as set forth in Attachment 1 (All commission motions are made in the affirmative). Required Vote: A majority of those present (5 members are a quorum). PROJECT SUMMARY: Request to rezone approximately 2.6 acres of property generally located at 1739, 1745 and 1755 S. National Avenue and 1138 E. University Street and 1111, 1119, 1133 and 1141 E. Sunshine Street from R-SF, Single-Family Residential District, O-2, Office District with Conditional Overlay District No. 276. LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP Planning and Zoning Commission Page 1 of 34 Page 10 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT GOOGLE AERIAL OF LANDMARKS, BUSINESSES, AND ATTRACTIONS: Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 of 34 Page 11 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT GOOGLE STREETVIEW: Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 of 34 Page 12 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT PROPERTY HISTORY: The subject properties have been zoned R-SF, Single-Family Residential District since the Citywide remapping in 1995. The original rezoning application for General Retail (GR) zoning with Conditional Overlay District (COD) was submitted in August of 2022. That application was withdrawn in October of 2022 because the applicant had acquired 3 lots to add to the rezoning so a new application for GR with COD was resubmitted and later postponed until April of 2023. On April 6, 2023, Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the proposed rezoning to GR with COD No. 220. At the May 22, 2023, City Council meeting the applicant proposed changes to the Conditional Overlay District and City Council remanded the rezoning case back to Planning and Zoning Commission. The case was postponed until the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on December 14, 2023, where it was recommended for denial. The rezoning case was withdrawn in January and the applicant applied for a Planned Development in February. The PD application was withdrawn in July of 2024. A new rezoning request for GR with a COD was recommended for denial by Planning and Zoning Commission in August of 2024 and an amended bill was denied by City Council in October of 2024. Since that time, Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended denial of a rezoning application for O-2, Office District with a COD on September 11, 2025. The applicant requested City Council to remand this request to Planning and Zoning Commission to consider adding hotel uses as a Conditional Use. City Council approved to remand the request on October 20, 2025. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUTHORITY: Sec. 36-367. – Amendments (7) Findings by the commission. (a) Rezonings. If the application is for a reclassification of property to a different zoning district classification on the zoning map, the report of the planning and zoning commission may consider: 1. Whether the proposed zoning district classification is consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan; 2. Whether there are any changed or changing conditions in the area affected that make the proposed rezoning necessary; 3. Whether the range of uses in the proposed zoning district classification are compatible with the uses permitted on other property in the immediate vicinity; 4. Whether adequate utility and sewer and water facilities exist or can be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on the property if it were rezoned; 5. The impact the uses, which would be permitted if the property were rezoned, will have upon the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and traffic safety in the vicinity; 6. Whether the proposed rezoning would correct an error in the application of this article as applied to the subject property; 7. Whether a reasonably viable economic use of the subject property will be precluded if the proposed rezoning is denied; and Planning and Zoning Commission Page 4 of 34 Page 13 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT 8. Information submitted at the public hearing. ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS: CODE ITEM REQUIREMENTS FOR O-2 DISTRICT Use Limitations (a) All activities and permitted uses except off-street parking and loading facilities, drive-thru facilities and day care activities shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed building. (b) All uses shall operate in accordance with the noise standards contained in section 36-485, noise standards. (c) No use shall emit an odor that creates a nuisance as determined by chapter 2A, article X, Springfield City Code. (d) Uses on parcels not served by public water and public sewer shall meet the requirements of subsection 36- 303(22). Minimum Lot Size Not applicable to the Office District Maximum Height O-2: None. Bulk Plane O-2: None. Minimum Yard Requirements 1. Front yard: a. Twenty-five feet along a street classified as a collector or higher classification street or as required by section 36-453, supplemental open space and yard regulations. b. Fifteen feet along a street classified as a local street or as required by section 36-453, supplemental open space and yard regulations. c. The front yard setback may be reduced below the minimum required above if a conditional use permit is approved in accordance with section 36-363, conditional use permits, or an approved preliminary plat in accordance with the city's subdivision regulations. 2. Side yard: Ten feet on each side of a lot or as required by section 36-453, supplemental open space and yard regulations, provided that no side yard is required for any building that has a common wall on a lot line. 3. Rear yard: Twenty percent of the lot depth but may not be less than ten feet nor more than 25 feet be required. Minimum Open Space Not less than 20 percent of the gross site area shall be devoted to open space, including required yards and bufferyards unless modified in accordance with subsection 36-482 (15). Open space shall not include areas covered by buildings, structures, parking, storage, loading and other paved areas and internal streets or areas containing plants Planning and Zoning Commission Page 5 of 34 Page 14 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT for display and sale. Open space shall contain living ground cover and other landscaping materials. Design Requirements (a) A site plan meeting the requirements of section 36- 360, site plan review, shall be submitted and approved. (b) A landscape plan meeting the requirements of sections 36-482, landscaping and bufferyards, and 36-483, off-street parking and loading area design standards, shall be submitted and approved. (c) All off-street parking lots and vehicular use areas shall be screened from all residential uses in accordance with section 36-480, screening and fencing. (d) Refuse storage areas shall be screened from view in accordance with section 36-480, screening and fencing. (e) Mechanical and electrical equipment, including air conditioning units, shall be screened from view in accordance with section 36-480, screening and fencing. (f) Lighting shall be designed to reflect away from any adjacent residential area and in accordance with section 36-484, lighting standards. (g) Accessory buildings and structures shall meet the requirements of section 36-450, accessory structures and uses. Buffering and Landscaping Whenever any development in an O district is located adjacent to a different zoning district, screening and a bufferyard shall be provided in accordance with sections 36-480, screening and fencing, and 36-482, landscaping and bufferyards. COMPATIBILITY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: PLACETYPE: The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use & Development chapter identifies the subject properties as the Traditional neighborhood placetype; however, this is considered a transition zone between the Traditional Neighborhood and Institutional & Employment placetype where supporting uses can be integrated if appropriately designed and buffered. Traditional Neighborhoods are comprised of post-war residential neighborhoods that contain predominantly single-family detached dwellings with uniform setbacks, building designs, and parcel sizes, that are separated from dissimilar uses by distinct zoning boundaries and buffer yards. Housing in Traditional Neighborhoods range from bungalows to expansive ranch style homes constructed with a variety of materials and methods. Neighborhood parks, schools, and churches are dispersed throughout to serve nearby residents. These neighborhoods can follow a gridded block pattern or curvilinear streets and are well connected internally with sidewalks Planning and Zoning Commission Page 6 of 34 Page 15 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT and trails. Traditional Neighborhoods tend to be expansive, isolating residents from services and resources on the edges, often beyond walking distance. Planning for Traditional Neighborhoods should strive to increase and integrate quality of place and complete neighborhood characteristics. These characteristics could include beautification efforts such as planting street trees, expanding connections and access to the greenway and trail system, and support for low-intensity multi-family, low-intensity neighborhood commercial, or a mix of uses to serve area residents. Multi-family, neighborhood commercial, or mixed use should be located on the edges of the greenway system, on higher classification roadways, or areas identified by residents during the neighborhood planning process. Preservation of residential housing and housing patterns should be prioritized where lots are predominately accessed from side or internal local streets. PRIMARY USES • Single-family detached SUPPORTING USES • Single-family attached • Low-intensity multifamily • Low-intensity, neighborhood commercial • Parks, greenways, and open space • Public and private schools and places of worship • Low-intensity urban agriculture Institutional & Employment Center Placetype PRIMARY USES • Universities, colleges, and vocational schools • Government, healthcare, and institutional facilities SUPPORTING USES • Single-family detached • Single-family attached • Multi-family • Parks, greenways, and open space • Sports complexes and recreational facilities • Office, hospitality, retail sales and service • Maker, artisan and innovations spaces • Public and private schools and places of worship Planning and Zoning Commission Page 7 of 34 Page 16 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT CHARACTERISTICS TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE • Traffic-calming measures, such as speed-humps, bump-outs, roundabouts, landscaped chicanes with integrated stormwater management, and on-street parking are used to slow traffic. • Best management practices for stormwater management are required in development projects and within public rights-of-way, such as permeable paving, rain gardens, green roofs, native landscaping, and other low impact design strategies. • Sidewalk gaps are filled, and sidewalks connect to transit routes, greenways and trails, and supportive uses are located within the neighborhood and around the perimeter. • Alleys provide pedestrian connections, alternative access to rear yards, detached garages, and other approved accessory uses. • Sense of place and identity is enhanced through neighborhood organization efforts, preservation and planting trees, neighborhood identification signs, and traffic calming improvements that double as streetscape elements. • As technology, trends, and funds permit, utilities are buried or are consolidated along rear property lines, reducing conflicts with street trees, pedestrian infrastructure, and viewsheds. • Major entrances into neighborhoods are marked by identification signs and landscaping. URBAN DESIGN - BUILDING AND SITE TYPOLOGY - Urban design characteristics that apply to both Center City and Traditional Neighborhoods include: • The main entrances of new residential developments are oriented towards the primary street. • Preservation and adaptive reuse of neighborhood schools and surplus buildings are encouraged. • When appropriate, adaptive reuse of residential structures for low-intensity, neighborhood-scale nonresidential uses, including missing middle housing types, is encouraged at neighborhood nodes and along edges. • Accommodations are made to allow expanded home occupations, without detracting from the character of the neighborhood, being conscious of changing trends and advances in technologies. • New and infill buildings maintain the proportions and architectural features common in the existing block. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 8 of 34 Page 17 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT • When commercial buildings are located within or adjacent to the neighborhood, they are oriented to the street, focus on pedestrian-scale, and provide limited vehicle parking. Traditional Neighborhood, Urban design characteristics unique to Traditional Neighborhood character area include: • Residential subdivisions are designed and platted with curvilinear streets in structured layouts that maximize use of land. • Lots have uniform widths, depths, and setbacks that align with home sizes and densities. • Attached garages are a standard element, typically integrated into the design of the home and make up a dominant part of the front elevation, reducing the on-street parking demands. • Vehicular driveways are provided for each home and are accessed almost exclusively from the front or side street, limiting on-street parking opportunities. • Neighborhoods are often self-regulated by covenants that limit use, size, and design of structures, as well as care and use of private amenities and common areas. Transitions: • A “stepped down” approach is used to transition from higher density/intensity residential and non-residential uses to single-family residential homes and uses, with greater densities/intensities located on higher functioning roadways, at the periphery of the neighborhood. • Lower density residential uses are sufficiently screened and buffered between higher density housing and nonresidential uses. • The design of higher density residential uses integrated into the Residential Neighborhood Placetype should complement the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. Attention should be given to building height, orientation, architectural style, and setback to ensure the existing neighborhood character is retained. PLACETYPE ASSIGNMENTS AND TRANSITIONS Assignments Placetype designations are based on a variety of factors but largely represent desired future land use patterns. Placetype assignments also reflect existing development patterns, take into consideration historical value, as well as the impact and relationship to the built and natural environmental. The following conditions and land characteristics should be considered when changes or amendments are proposed to and within a placetype. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 9 of 34 Page 18 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT Primary use - The predominate historical use and development pattern of a geographic area that exists within the built and natural environment. Proximity – The location with respect to significant landmarks and geographic places Edges and boundaries – Natural boundaries and geographic edges, including major roadways, railways, waterways, parks, and geographical land features. Roadway classifications – Functional use and type of roadways on the edges or at crossroads Regulatory – Existing zoning, permitted and conditional uses, historic designations, and redevelopment plans. Forecasts – Anticipated major land use shifts, changes in use, or trends. Other Considerations – • Decreasing or increasing market demand for commercial or housing in non-traditional districts or corridors • Greater focus on integrating diverse uses at the edges and areas of transition. • Community expectations • More walkable, livable integrated neighborhoods and districts • Documented increases in nuisances, code violations, disinvestment, and other related trends • More diversity in housing types, affordability, and availability • Increased beautification, aesthetics, and identity • Greater focus on preservation, adaptation, and reuse of existing homes and structures Transitions In every city, dissimilar land uses converge at some point. Transitioning within, between, and along the edges is one of the most critical elements to align as Placetypes are implemented, changed, or amended. Typically, a one-to-two-block transition zone on either side of both placetype boundaries would be a practical zone to complete the transition from one placetype to another. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 10 of 34 Page 19 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT FUTURE PLACETYPE MAP: Planning and Zoning Commission Page 11 of 34 Page 20 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT MAJOR THOROUGHFARE MAP: SURROUNDING ZONING, LAND USES AND PLACETYPES: NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST ZONING R-SF O-1 & R-SF GR & R-SF R-SF LAND USE Retail and eating Medical Clinic and Single-family and drinking Single-family single-family residential establishments & residential residential single-family res. PLACETYPES Traditional Institutional & Institutional & Traditional Neighborhood Employment Employment Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Commission Page 12 of 34 Page 21 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: No comments. CITY UTILITIES: No issues with rezoning or COD language. To achieve the proposed buffer yard standards, existing overhead electric & telecom facilities may have to be relocated underground, which may also impact services to neighboring properties. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION: No objection to rezoning. FIRE DEPARTMENT: No comments. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION: TRAFFIC REPORT ROW from Traffic On- Sidewalk Street Street Centerline (ft.) Count Jurisdiction Street Name Classification (vehicles Parking Required Existing per day) Required Existing S. Street Primary National City 50 40 31,910 No Yes Yes 1 Arterial Avenue E. Street Primary Sunshine City 50 50 28,940 No Yes Yes 2 Arterial Street E. Street University Local City 25 25 260 Yes Yes Yes 3 Street Daily AM Peak PM Peak Existing Trips Generated (R-SF) 125 11 13 *Proposed Trips Generated 1872 42 244 Additional Trips Generated 1747 31 231 *Proposed Trips Generated is based on the highest, most intense use permitted in the proposed rezoning, Conditional Overlay District, and traffic impact analysis. ACCESS - All new and existing driveway approaches shall comply with the accepted traffic study and planned development. - National Avenue: No direct access is allowed to S. National Avenue from the development. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 13 of 34 Page 22 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT - Sunshine Street: Access P1 will serve as a Right-in/Right-out/Left-In only access driveway, providing ingress and egress to the development. - University Street: Access P2 will serve as a full access driveway, providing ingress and egress to the development. TRAILS, BUS STOPS, AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - There are no Greenway Trails near the property. There is one (1) bus stop near the property on S. National Avenue. IMPROVEMENTS - A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been completed and accepted by the city. The improvements required based on the TIA are required to be submitted on Public Improvement Plans (PIP) and the improvements constructed, or funds escrowed prior to approval of a building permit. Required improvements include: - a raised concrete median on National Avenue restricting access to University Street to Right-in/Right-out only on the west side of National Avenue and Right-in/Right-out/Left-in only on the east side of National Avenue. - a raised concrete median on Sunshine Street restricting access to the development to Right-in/Right-out/Left-in only. - traffic calming measures on University Street and/or Hampton Avenue, as approved by the Director of Public Works. - the development should be completed in a manner, or right-of-way provided, to allow future construction of the southbound National Avenue to westbound Sunshine Street right turn lane. - any change in use that creates an increase in total trip generation, as determined by the Director of Public Works, as presented in the accepted TIA of more than 500 trips daily and/or 50 trips in the peak hour will require a modified TIA. - The requirements of said study shall be incorporated in the site plan, PIP, or other permits as applicable. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STORMWATER ENGINEERING DIVISION: SITE DESCRIPTION & DRAINAGE PATTERN Drainage Fee in Lieu Fee in Lieu Stream Sinkhole or Floodplain/ Basin Flood Control Water Quality Buffer Watershed Floodway 1111 E Fassnight Sunshine No No No No No Creek St All chapter and section references below are to the City’s Flood Control and Water Quality Protection Manual Version April 2022. DETENTION AND DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS 1. Any development or redevelopment that increases runoff, through the increase in impervious surface, must meet current detention requirements per Chapter 3 Sec. 2.3.3. a. Detention of stormwater runoff is required. A fee in lieu of detention for this development will not be permitted. The proposed rezoning is for eight properties increasing use from single family residential to general retail. The combined lot and future development will add 1.23 acres of impervious area (see table below). Planning and Zoning Commission Page 14 of 34 Page 23 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT Estimated Impervious Area from GIS Total Combined Area 2.6 acres Existing Impervious 0.85 Area acres Allowable Impervious 2.08 Area acres New Impervious Area 1.23 acres b. Wrecking Permit for 1755 S National Ave is credited for the impervious area for 5 years. October 2027 the existing impervious area will decrease by 0.18 acres to 0.67 acres. c. The current property has two drainage areas draining West and East/Northeast with the high point at 1119 E Sunshine St. The West drainage area is 0.3 acres and drains to 1111 E Sunshine St and 1110/1118 E University St. The East drainage area is 2.3 acres and drains to S National Ave along with part of E Sunshine St. The proposed site plan does not show elevations but is capable of being graded to change the drainage patterns to all 2.6 acres draining to the east. d. PW-Stormwater would recommend the onsite detention connect to the 48”x30” Box Culvert running North along the East side of S National Ave. The development can possibly connect to the street curb inlet box on S National Ave by 1721 E University St. The area inlet is connected the Box Culvert through an 18-inch diameter RCP. 2. Any Stormwater infrastructure serving more than one property needs to be submitted on public improvement plans. City Code 98-14 requires all PIP work completed prior to issuance of the building permit or Final Plat. PIP must be approved and Completed or Escrowed through the Bond or Security. WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS 1. Water Quality is required for new development projects or redevelopment projects, with new or increased impervious surfacing, within the city limits of Springfield that disturb 1 acre or greater. Including projects less than 1 acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will disturb 1 or more acres over the life of the project. Chapter 10 Sec. 2.0. 2. A land disturbance permit will be required with disturbing 1 acre or greater per Chapter 4 Section 5 of the City’s Flood Control and Water Quality Protection Manual. 3. Water Quality Credits are available to use in design for preserved trees and new planted trees. Landscaping and Bufferyards trees required by planning cannot be used for the water quality credits unless it is part of a SCM. Chapter 10, Section 3.1. FLOODPLAIN N/A Planning and Zoning Commission Page 15 of 34 Page 24 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT NATURAL CHANNEL & STREAM BUFFERS N/A SINKHOLES & KARST FEATURES N/A STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 2.6 acres of property generally located at 1739, 1745 and 1755 S. National Avenue and 1138 E. University Street and 1111, 1119, 1133 and 1141 E. Sunshine Street from R-SF, Single-Family Residential District, to O-2, Office District with Conditional Overlay District No. 276. 2. The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use & Development chapter identifies the subject property as the Traditional Neighborhood placetype. These subject properties are on the edge of the Traditional Neighborhood placetype adjacent to Sunshine Street and National Avenue which are classified as primary arterial roadway on the City’s Major Thoroughfare Plan. The other three corners of this major intersection of the city are designated as Institutional & Employment Placetypes with existing businesses and services that serve the Mercy hospital and medical clinics and offices in the area. 3. The applicant is proposing the O-2, Office District as opposed to the GR, General Retail District which will limit the intensity of permitted uses more than previous iterations. 4. The proposed O-2 Office District with COD is more restrictive than the northeast corner of Sunshine and National which rezoned and redeveloped starting in 2016. It also has more restrictions than the O-1 development (CoxHealth clinic) to the southwest specifically the design and bufferyards. 5. The proposed Conditional Overlay District requirements prohibit many objectionable uses that could be incompatible with the neighborhood and will limit traffic volumes; however, the Growth Management and Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states it is important to ensure that new land uses are not detrimental to residential areas and to recognize the vulnerability of residential areas to certain adverse impacts. This objective does not mean that non-residential land uses are automatically inappropriate in residential areas; it means that design and location criteria must consider the existing residential areas. The applicant has prohibited entertainment- oriented use group and personal service use group which can be high- volume traffic generators. Other potentially objectionable uses such as retail sales of adult novelties, pawn shops, vape shops, convenience stores with gas pumps, and are also prohibited amongst others as listed in the COD (Attachment 1). 6. The applicant has requested that Hotels be an allowed use with a conditional use permit. The Citywide remapping will transition the O-2 District to C-MX1 which doesn’t allow hotels; however, the proposed COD will allow for the hotel use with a Conditional Use Permit. The conditional use permit process in the new Land Development Code will require Planning and Zoning Commission approval only. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 16 of 34 Page 25 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT 7. The Use Limitations restrict businesses operating within the proposed district shall be limited to business hours of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on all days of the week. No business activity is allowed on the premises outside of these times. This limitation shall not apply to nursing homes, retirement homes or residential uses. 8. The applicant has added design requirements to the COD that are based on the existing code requirements “Revised Multi-Family Location and Design Guidelines” that will be applied to any development of the site. The site will have requirements for pedestrian amenities, orientation of buildings to the street, avoiding blank walls on buildings along all street frontages, blending the building scale and setback with existing developments, street facing walls must be articulated and providing additional bicycle parking that will encourage pedestrian activity. The applicant will be required to provide pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjoining public sidewalks that will provide a good circulation system. The site will be designed to respect the natural environment by incorporating functional amenities in the open space, requiring additional trees with larger caliper to replace existing trees that are removed and requiring tree protection for trees being preserved onsite. 9. The building facades shall be designed to have a similar level of quality and architectural finish on all sides of the buildings visible to the public. This shall be accomplished by integrating architectural variations and treatments such as windows and other decorative features into all sides of a building design. Architectural design guidelines have been added which provide design styles that any buildings must be substantially consistent with. Colonial Revival, Craftsman or Tudor Revivals are listed. 10. The COD limits building materials and colors to those that will have low reflectance. High-intensity, metallic or fluorescent colors will be prohibited. Façades shall incorporate no less than 60 percent brick, stone, stucco or craftsman style cementitious board or wood into the design. Stone veneer can be engineered stone or natural cut stone. No building shall have more than 50 percent exterior glazing on a frontage facing Sunshine Street or National Avenue and the first floor of any building facade facing a public right- of-way shall include transparent, clear glass windows and/or doors arranged so that the uses inside are visible from and/or accessible to the street. Window and/or doors with reflective or tinted glass that impede views into a building shall be prohibited. If roofs are visible to the public, whether viewed from the public right-of-way or adjacent property, they shall be comprised of architectural asphalt shingle roofing. These design elements will enhance compatibility with neighboring residential structures and are supportive of urban design that emphasizes pedestrian oriented buildings and traditional urban character as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. 11. The development of the property will require a bufferyard along the west and north property lines immediately adjacent to the R-SF, Single-Family Residential zoning district. The normal bufferyard required between O-2 and R-SF would be a bufferyard "Type D" at least fifteen (15) feet wide. For each one hundred (100) linear feet of bufferyard, there must be two (2) canopy trees, two (2) understory trees, two (2) evergreen tree and fourteen (14) shrubs. A structure (i.e. fence, wall, berm or hedge Planning and Zoning Commission Page 17 of 34 Page 26 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT row) is not required as part of this bufferyard. A bufferyard type S1 is required along the north side of the property that is along University Street. This bufferyard is a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in depth with plantings. A structure (i.e. fence, wall, berm or hedge row) is not required as part of this bufferyard S1. 12. The applicant is voluntarily proposing to install more mature landscaping than is currently required by code or a 6-foot-tall solid wood fence and has eliminated the ability to administratively reduce the proposed bufferyard widths below the code required minimum standards. The increased height and bulk of the landscape material will assist with providing an enhanced landscape buffer between the site and the surrounding residential development, thus increasing compatibility between the differing land uses. 13. As part of the COD, the applicant is proposing two bufferyard options. A 6-foot solid wood fence (with bufferyard type D plantings) or non-deciduous evergreen trees at 8 feet on center to be planted in the bufferyard areas adjacent to the R-SF and along University Street. It also stipulates that each tree is to be a minimum of approximately 12 feet tall when planted. This can be a part of the evergreen tree bufferyard requirements; however, anything over and above the standard bufferyard landscaping must be planted in addition to the bufferyard area. It also states that these additional trees and landscaping shall not interfere with sight distance or any other city code requirements. 14. The proposed COD will restrict the structure height to 50 feet above finished grade. This makes the maximum height of any structures at three or four stories. The 30-degree bulk plane will still apply, but in the areas where the bulk plane doesn’t limit the height below 50 feet, then this restriction will come into effect. The O-2 District has no bulk plane requirement, so the COD is more restrictive than current code. The bulk plane is a theoretical plane beginning at a district boundary (in this case) and rising over a slope determined by an acute angle measured up from the horizontal. The bulk plane defines the relationship of the height of a structure and the structure’s setback from the district boundary. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 30-degree bulk plane for the height of structures in a GR District measured from the R-SF District boundary line. This means that for every one (1) foot of structure height, the building must be set back 1.73 feet from the district boundary line (example below). This requirement would limit the height of the structure from the R-SF district boundaries to the north (across University Street), northwest (adjacent private property), east (across National Avenue), south (across Sunshine Street) and west (adjacent private property). Planning and Zoning Commission Page 18 of 34 Page 27 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT The applicant is proposing to limit the height of the structure to 50 feet. The definition of height is the vertical distance of a structure measured from the average established grade at the street lot line or from the average natural ground level, if higher; or if no street grade has been established to the highest point of the roof's surface if a flat surface; to the deck line of mansard roofs; and to the mean height level between eaves and ridge for hip or gable roofs. In measuring the height of a building, the following structures shall be excluded: chimneys, cooling towers, telecommunication towers, ornamental cupolas, domes, or spires, elevator bulk heads, penthouses, tanks, water towers, and parapet walls not exceeding four feet in height. This height limitation of 50 feet would not start limiting the structure until 87 feet from any R-SF district boundary into the site if the site was completely flat. The site increases approximately 10 feet in grade from University Street to Sunshine Street (from northeast to southwest) with the highest points at the southwest portion of the property along Sunshine Street. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 19 of 34 Page 28 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT 15. The exterior lighting and signage requirements of the COD will limit the height of lighting sources to control glare and light spillover, and signage will be required to be compatible with the style of the building. 16. The Additional Requirements in section L. of the COD includes requirements for lot combination that will require additional right-of-way to meet current standards, access restrictions and site plan review for conformance by the Administrative Review Committee. 17. The subject property has access to City Utilities infrastructure, and any necessary extension of such services can be provided via City Utilities’ extension policy, though new easements may be necessary to accommodate this. City Utilities’ state that all subject properties have access to CU Electric/Gas/Water. To achieve the proposed bufferyard standards, existing overhead electric & telecom facilities may have to be relocated underground, which may also impact services to neighboring properties. 18. There are changing conditions in the area affected that make the proposed rezoning necessary. The intersection of Sunshine and National has some of the highest traffic volumes in the city. Redevelopment of property within the vicinity has been occurring. 19. The range of uses in the proposed O-2 district with COD are compatible with the uses permitted on other property in the immediate vicinity to the east and south of the intersection. Non-residential uses exist at all other corners of this major intersection. There is an existing retail shopping center at the northeast corner, the Mercy hospital campus at the southeast, and a new CoxHealth clinic at the southwest corner. These properties are on the edge of Placetypes and in a transition area of the Institutional & Employment placetype. The O-2 district is designed to allow more intense use of land that is in close proximity to the central city district or other high intensity use areas specified in the Springfield Comprehensive Plan. 20. The impact of the proposed uses is not expected to significantly increase the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic or reduce traffic safety in the vicinity. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been completed and accepted by the city. The improvements required based on the TIA are required to be submitted on Public Improvement Plans (PIP) and the improvements constructed, or funds escrowed prior to approval of a building permit. Required improvements include a raised concrete median on National Avenue restricting access to University Street to Right-in/Right-out only on the west side of National Avenue and Right-in/Right-out/Left-in only on the east side of National Avenue; a raised concrete median on Sunshine Street restricting access to the development to Right-in/ Right-out/Left-in only; traffic calming measures on University Street and/or Hampton Avenue; the development should be completed in a manner, or right-of-way provided, to allow future construction of the southbound National Avenue to westbound Sunshine Street turn lane; and any change in use that creates an increase in total trip generation, as determined by the Director of Public Works, as presented in the final accepted TIA of more than 500 trips daily and/or 50 trips in the peak hour will require a modified TIA. The requirements of said study shall be incorporated in the site plan, PIP, or other permits as applicable. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 20 of 34 Page 29 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT 21. The following required traffic calming measures are to be installed, as approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and included in the Public Improvement Plans: a. Midblock speed cushions on East University Street between Hampton and the development and between S Hampton Ave and S Kings Avenue. b. Midblock speed cushions on S Hampton Avenue between E Sunshine Street and E University Street and between E University Street and E Stanford Street. c. Midblock speed cushion on E Stanford Street between S National Avenue and S Hampton Street. 22. The required dedication of additional right-of-way along National Avenue will facilitate the city’s ability to construct a southbound to westbound right turn lane on National Avenue. The addition of this right turn lane on National Avenue will improve the overall level of service and traffic flow of the Sunshine St and National Avenue signalized intersection. 23. City Code requires access on National Avenue to be a minimum of 400-feet from the nearest right-of-way line of E. Sunshine Street and access on E. Sunshine Street to be a minimum of 300-feet from the nearest right-of-way line of S. National Avenue. There is not enough property frontage to meet these requirements along S. National Avenue, therefore access will not be allowed on S. National Avenue. Currently, City Code requires the proposed access from E. University Street to be a minimum of 110-feet from the nearest right-of-way line of S. National Avenue. Access to E. University Street can meet this requirement. A Traffic Impact Study has been conducted, and right-of-way and traffic improvements will be required to ensure the development is consistent with access management design standards and City Code. 24. The proposed zoning will not correct an error in the application of this article but rather will provide a viable use of the property subject to the provisions of the zoning district. 25. A reasonably viable economic use of the subject property will not be precluded if the proposed rezoning is denied. 26. Private covenants or restrictions on private property are a civil matter. The City does not consider or enforce such matters as their legal status must be determined by a court. 27. The proposed rezoning was reviewed by City departments and comments are contained in the staff report (above). 28. Water quality measures and detention of stormwater runoff is required. A fee in lieu of detention for this development will not be permitted. The proposed development has 8 properties combining into one lot. The combined lots and future development will add approximately 1.23 acres of impervious area. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 21 of 34 Page 30 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT 29. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 21, 2025, regarding the rezoning request. A summary of the meeting is attached (Attachment 3). 30. The public notice was advertised in the Springfield News-Leader at least 15 days prior to the public hearing. The property was posted by the applicant at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. Public notice letters were sent out at least 10 days prior to the public hearing to all property owners within 185 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends approval based on the proposal’s general conformance to the Comprehensive Plan’s Traditional Neighborhood placetype and on the finding of facts above. PLANNING AND ZONING OPTIONS: The planning and zoning commission shall make one of the following recommendations in connection with each proposed change in zoning district classification of this article: 1. Recommend against the proposed change in the zoning district classification. 2. Recommend a change in the zoning district classification. 3. Recommend a change in the zoning district classification together with recommendations which, in the judgment of the planning and zoning commission, will protect adjacent property and ensure that the proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of this article. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 22 of 34 Page 31 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT ATTACHMENT 1 CONDITIONAL OVERLAY DISTRICT PROVISIONS NO. 276 The requirements of Section 36-400. of the Springfield Zoning Ordinance shall be modified herein for development within this district to include the following: A. PERMITTED USES 1. Any residential dwelling existing at the time the district is mapped. As a conforming use, such dwelling can be expanded or, if destroyed, replaced with another dwelling of the same type within 18 months of being destroyed. 2. Community gardens without retail or wholesale sales in accordance with the performance standards of City Code. 3. Educational, religious, cultural, public, or nonprofit institutions such as churches, museums, art galleries and libraries, but not including correctional institutions or hospitals. 4. General office use group. 5. Medical office use group. 6. Nursing and retirement homes. 7. Public and private parks, and playgrounds, excluding gold courses, miniature golf courses and driving ranges 8. Residential uses provided such uses are located above the first floor or behind non- residential uses so as to create a continuous nonresidential façade, on the first-floor level. When a lot has multiple street frontages, first-floor non-residential uses will be required on the street with the highest classification. All other street frontages may contain residential uses. 9. Retail sales use group located in an office building provided the total floor area of such uses does not exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of all the office buildings on the same lot. Excluding: a) Adults motion picture theater, adult stores, or cabaret as defined by City Code. b) Convenience stores with gas pumps c) Dollar stores, which means stores that sell inexpensive items priced usually at a dollar or a few dollars. d) Medical, comprehensive or microbusiness marijuana dispensary facility e) Pawn Shops f) Self-service laundromats g) Vape shops 10. Short-term rental type 3 in accordance with City Code. B. CONDITIONAL USES 1. Hotels C. USE LIMITATIONS 1. Businesses operating within the proposed rezoning district shall be limited to business hours of: Planning and Zoning Commission Page 23 of 34 Page 32 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT a. 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on all days of the week. b. No business activity is allowed on the premises outside of these times. This limitation shall not apply to nursing homes, retirement homes, hotels, or residential uses. 2. All outdoor automobile parking areas used for the purpose of retail or wholesale storage or sale of motorized or commercial vehicles shall be prohibited. 3. No outdoor storage. 4. No use shall emit an odor that creates a nuisance as determined by City Code. 5. Trash services shall pick up trash between 5 p.m. and 11 p.m. D. INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT Development shall adhere to the following standards. a. Maximum multi-family residential density of 29 dwelling units per acre and meeting the design requirements of City Code. E. BULK, AREA AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS Development shall adhere to the following standards. a. Maximum structure height: 50 feet above finished grade. b. All structures shall remain below a 30-degree bulk plane as measured from the boundary of any R-SF or R-TH/R-MX1 district. F. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS 1. Building development in the proposed rezoning district shall be based on existing references within the context of the adjacent neighboring community to create harmony between this site and the neighboring community. 2. The site shall be designed to encourage pedestrian activity and shall: a. Provide pedestrian amenities such as pedestrian scale lighting and street furniture to enhance the pedestrian environment. b. Orient buildings to the street or public/common open space and provide pedestrian access to the street. c. Blend the building scale and set back with existing developments along National and Sunshine that are consistent with these guidelines. Street facing walls that are greater than 50’ in length must be articulated at least each 25 feet with bays, projections, or recesses. Articulation means a difference in vertical planes of the building of at least 18 inches or more; and d. Provide bicycle parking equal to five percent of required vehicle parking spaces or ten Planning and Zoning Commission Page 24 of 34 Page 33 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT spaces, whichever is less. 3. The site shall be designed to provide a good circulation system and shall: a. Provide pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjoining public sidewalks; and b. Provide connectivity by including direct vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle connections between abutting or adjacent developments. 4. The site shall be designed to respect the natural environment and shall: a. Incorporate functional amenities in the open space and recreational areas such as outdoor seating areas. b. A tree study performed on the site identified five trees that should be preserved if possible. Due to redevelopment of the site, it is only practicable to preserve one tree, the Magnolia tree located in the northeast corner of the property. The Magnolia tree should be preserved to the extent reasonably possible; and c. The remaining four trees being removed must be replaced with a tree of at least two inches (2”) in diameter. Trees meeting the landscape requirements in the zoning ordinance may be counted toward this requirement. 5. The building facades shall be designed with the following requirements: a. All sides of buildings visible to the public, whether viewed from the public right-of-way or a nearby property, shall display a similar level of quality and architectural finish. This shall be accomplished by integrating architectural variations and treatments such as windows and other decorative features into all sides of a building design. b. Building materials and colors. (1) Facade colors shall have low reflectance. High-intensity, metallic, or fluorescent colors are prohibited. (2) Façade shall incorporate no less than 60% brick, stone, stucco, or craftsman style cementitious board or wood into the design. Stone veneer can be engineered stone or natural cut stone. (3) Façade shall not have more than three materials or changes in color, excluding glass. Metal, Vinyl, or plastic siding is prohibited. (4) No building(s) shall have more than fifty percent (50%) exterior glazing on any frontage facing Sunshine Street or National Avenue. (5) The ground level of nonresidential or mixed-use buildings must offer pedestrian interest along sidewalks and pedestrian paths through the placement of window and doors. Therefore, the first floor of any building façade facing a public right-of-way shall include transparent, clear glass windows and/or doors arranged so that the uses inside are visible from and/or accessible to the street. Window and/or doors with reflective or tinted glass that impede views into a building shall be prohibited. (6) If roofs are visible to the public, whether viewed from the public right-of-way or adjacent property, they shall be comprised of architectural asphalt shingle roofing. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 25 of 34 Page 34 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT c. Service and Loading Areas. Off-street loading shall be regulated in accordance with City Code. The following requirements are supplementary: (1) All service and loading areas shall be in the side or rear yard of buildings. (2) Service and loading areas shall be designed so that the entire service and loading operations are conducted on the building site. The visibility of service and loading from public streets shall be minimized. d. Architectural design guidelines. All sides of buildings visible to the public, whether view from the public right-of-way or nearby property, shall be substantially consistent with Colonial Revival, Craftsman, or Tudor Revival style, characteristics of which are as follows: (1) Exposed Structural Columns and Pilasters: classical details, frequently found on porches or framing the entrance. (2) Brick or wood or stone siding (3) Portico: A covered entrance supported by columns. (4) Natural Materials: Use of wood, stone, and other natural materials. (5) Earthy Color Palette: Use of warm, natural colors reflecting the surrounding landscape. G. OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING & SCREENING The landscaping and screening provisions are intended to improve the physical appearance of the district; to improve the environmental performance by contributing to the abatement of heat, glare and noise, and by promoting natural percolation of storm water and improvement of air quality; to buffer potentially incompatible land uses from one another; and to conserve the value of adjoining property and neighborhoods. 1. Open Space Requirements a. Minimum open space: 20% (1) Pervious pavement will not be allowed to count towards open space requirements. b. Maximum impervious area: 80% 2. Bufferyards and Screening a. A minimum 20-foot-wide buffer yard adjacent to R-SF zoning consisting of: (1) An 6-foot-tall wood privacy fence; or (2) Non-deciduous evergreen trees planted in the buffer yard at 8 feet on center. Each tree shall be a minimum of approximately 12 feet tall when planted and maintained in the bufferyard. An irrigation system will be installed as well to ensure maintenance, life and growth. Trees and landscaping shall not interfere with sight distance or other city code requirements. b. Required bufferyards on a lot or tract shall be installed when the lot or tract is developed. c. Required bufferyards in common areas shall be installed when any development occurs in the proposed rezoning district unless the installation is specifically delayed by the requirements. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 26 of 34 Page 35 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT 3. Vehicular use area open space a. Perimeter Landscaping. The requirements and standards of City Code, in effect at the time of development shall apply. b. Interior Landscaping. The requirements and standards of City Code, in effect at the time of development shall apply. 4. Open space landscaping a. Landscaping plantings. In all open space areas required by this District the following landscaping shall be planted and maintained for each five hundred (500) square feet of such open space area. Existing trees approved for preservation shall be counted toward satisfaction of this provision. (1) One (1) canopy tree or (2) understory, ornamental or evergreen trees. (2) Six (6) shrubs. b. Landscaping standards (1) Tree species, sizes and spacing shall be approved consistent with City Code. (2) Tree preservation shall be provided as required by City Code. (3) Maintenance of required landscaping. Upon installation or preservation of required landscape materials, appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure their continued health and maintenance. Required materials that do not remain healthy shall be replaced consistent with this article. H. EXTERIOR LIGHTING 1. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall either have a fixture cutoff classification of “full cutoff” or be fully shielded, unless otherwise expressly permitted. 2. All outdoor lighting utilizing a light-emitting diode (LED) fixture shall meet the following standards: a. Color rendering. Outdoor LED fixtures shall be rated a minimum color rendering index (CRI) value of 70 or higher. b. Color temperature. Outdoor LED fixtures shall have a correlated color temperature between 4,000- and 5,000-degrees Kelvin. 3. Maximum height of lighting poles shall not exceed 20 feet in height. I. NOISE The requirements and standards of City Code, in effect at the time of development shall apply; and Buildings and outdoor use areas such as patios should be placed and oriented in a manner that minimizes noise exposure to the adjoining residential properties. Speakers and noise emitting devices should be directed toward Sunshine Street and National Avenue. J. ACCESS TO PUBLIC THOROUGHFARES 1. Access to the public street system shall be governed by the Traffic Impact Assessment which has to be Planning and Zoning Commission Page 27 of 34 Page 36 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT approved by the City of Springfield Public Works Director. a. Access P1 (Sunshine Street): Shall construct a raised concrete median on Sunshine Street to restrict access to Right-in/Right-out/Left-in only. b. Access P2 (University Street): Shall construct a raised median on University Street to restrict access to Right-in/Right-out/Left-in only. c. University Street at National Avenue: Shall Construct a raised concrete median on National Avenue to restrict access to Right-in/Right-out only on the west side of National Avenue and Right-in/Right-out/Left-in only on the east side of National Avenue. d. University Street and/or Hampton Avenue: Shall install traffic calming measures, as approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and include them in Public Improvement Plans. e. The development should be completed in a manner, or right-of-way provided, to allow future construction of the southbound National Avenue to westbound Sunshine Street turn lane. f. A 5-foot permanent sidewalk easement along National Avenue may be required by the City of Springfield. 2. An internal pedestrian system connecting the front doors of each building with one another, and the sidewalks located along Sunshine Street and National Avenue shall be constructed as part of the development. 3. The existing driveway approaches on Sunshine Street and National Avenue in the proposed rezoning district shall be reduced so that there is no driveway or approach on National Avenue and no more than one driveway approach on Sunshine Street for ingress/egress to the subject properties. K. SIGNS 1. Signs located on any building façade are required to be compatible with the style of the building in terms of location, scale, color, and lettering. 2. Signs that are visible from the public right-of-way inside of a window or door are prohibited. 3. The owner is required to build, maintain, and repair a University Height Neighborhood identification sign at the entrance of E University Street. The sign shall be a monument sign with a minimum height of four (4) feet and a width of eight (8) feet and an effective area of thirty-two (32) square feet. The sign shall be constructed concurrently with the site. The sign shall comply with all requirements of the City Code. 4. All other signage requirements and standards shall meet City Code, in effect at the time of development shall apply. L. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS 1. Public improvements to be completed. Public and private improvements necessary to adequately accommodate the intensity of development proposed in this District shall be constructed prior to or concurrently with the development of the property. If the development of the property is phased, the construction of the improvements may also be phased provided there is a logical relationship between each phase of the development and the construction of the required Planning and Zoning Commission Page 28 of 34 Page 37 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT improvements. Prior to building permits being issued to the applicant, or subsequent owners shall: a. construct the required improvements; or b. provide assurances satisfactory to the Director of Public Works guaranteeing that all required improvements will be constructed in accordance with the “Design Standards for Public Improvements” of the Public Works Department shall be provided to the City. 2. Certificate of occupancy. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any structure within this District, or phase of the development, unless: a. the required improvements are completed prior to occupancy of the structures; or b. the Director of Public Works has determined that: (1) any incomplete required improvements have little or no effect on the occupancy of the facility; or (2) conditions beyond the control of the contractor, i.e., strikes, weather, etc., have delayed the completion of the improvements. If one of these conditions occurs, the Director of Building Development Services may permit occupancy under conditions satisfactory to the Director of Public Works that the required improvements will be completed as required by this ordinance within a reasonable time. 3. Required improvements. Improvements necessary to adequately accommodate the intensity of development in this District include the following. a. Street improvements. (1) Shall construct a raised concrete median on Sunshine Street to restrict access to Right- in/Right-out/Left-in only. (2) Shall Construct a raised concrete median on National Avenue to restrict access to Right- in/Right-out only on the west side of National Avenue and Right-in/Right-out/Left-in only on the east side of National Avenue. (3) Shall construct a raised median on University Street to restrict access to Right-in/Right- out/Left-in only. (4) Shall install traffic calming measures, as approved by the City Traffic Engineer, and include them in the Public Improvement Plans. a. Midblock speed cushions on East University Street between Hampton and the development and between S Hampton Ave and S Kings Avenue. b. Midblock speed cushions on S Hampton Avenue between E Sunshine Street and E University Street and between E University Street and E Stanford Street. c. Midblock speed cushion on E Stanford Street between S National Avenue and S Hampton Street. b. Sanitary sewer facilities. (1) It is recommended that public sewer be extended onto the site to better serve the development. c. Storm water management facilities. (1) On-site detention and water quality will be required for the site. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 29 of 34 Page 38 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT 4. Improvement Standards. Improvements shall conform to the following standards: a. All utilities and utility connections shall be located underground, including, but not limited to, electrical and telephone cables, security and other telecommunication systems and wires. Transformers, meters of any type (including electric, gas or other meters), or other apparatus shall be adequately screened and landscaped. M. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 1. A lot combination of all subject properties in accordance with all applicable subdivision regulations. 2. Vehicular access shall be limited to Sunshine Street and University Street and approved by the director of Public Works. The Existing driveways on National Avenue and Sunshine Street shall be removed so that there is no driveway approach on National Avenue and no more than one driveway or approach on Sunshine Street for ingress/egress to the proposed rezoning district. Access on Sunshine Street shall be restricted to right-in/right-out/left-in only as approved by the Director of Public Works; and 3. A final site plan, showing conformance with the requirements of this COD, shall be submitted to the Director of the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of permits for the construction of permanent improvements within the proposed rezoning district. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 30 of 34 Page 39 of 93  COD ATTACHMENT 2 R 22 W GRAND ST Tel: 417.889.3400 KIMBROUGH AVE 5051 S. National CAMPBELL AVE NATIONAL AVE OWNER/DEVELOPER: CJW Transportation BK&M, LLC. O-2 ZONING WITH COD CJW Transportation Consultants, L.L.C. C/O RALPH DUDA 5126 S CHELSEA AVE N 25 T 29 N SPRINGFIELD, MO 65804 RJDUDA@GMAIL.COM PROPERTY SUNSHINE ST & NATIONAL AVE Suite 7A Fax: 417.889.3402 LOCATION PORTLAND ST Consultants, L.L.C. Engineering Prepared by: UNIVERSITY ST SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI SUNSHINE ST LOCATION SKETCH SCALE 1" = 2000' Springfield, MO 65810 www.GoCJW.com MO C.A. #2006012385 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ALL OF LOT TEN (10), IN UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, AN ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, IN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI. ALL OF LOT ELEVEN (11) IN UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI, ACCORDING TO THE RYon RECORDED PLAT THEREOF. TRACT I: ALL OF LOT TWELVE (12), UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY A cti OF SPRINGFIELD, GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI. N I stru TRACT II: I M on EL or THE EAST ONE HALF (E1/2) OF LOT THIRTEEN (13), UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, AN RAISED CONCRETE ISLAND TO PREVENT C ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI. LEFT TURNS OFF UNIVERSITY STREET. R tF P o N ALL OF THE WEST ONE-HALF (W1/2) OF LOT THIRTEEN (13), IN UNIVERSITY RAISED MEDIAN TO PREVENT LEFT HEIGHTS, AN ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, GREENE COUNTY, TURNS OUT OF DEVELOPMENT MISSOURI. ALL OF THE EAST SEVENTY (70) FEET OF LOT FOURTEEN (14), IN UNIVERSITY EXISTING MAGNOLIA TREE TO HEIGHTS, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, GREENE COUNTY, BE PRESERVED AS MISSOURI. REASONABLY POSSIBLE. ALL OF LOT TWENTY-EIGHT (28), IN UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS, AN ADDITION TO E UNIVERSITY STREET THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI. RAISED CONCRETE ISLAND TO PREVENT LEFT TURNS OUT ALL OF THE EAST FIFTY (50) FEET OF LOT TWENTY-NINE (29), IN UNIVERSITY 15' WIDE STANDARD HEIGHTS, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, GREENE COUNTY, CITY S1 BUFFER YARD SUNSHINE AND NATIONAL MISSOURI, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF. UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD SIGN COD ATTACHMENT C:\Users\Chris_Wynn\CJW Transportation\CJW PROJECTS - Documents\2024\24002 - BK&M Sunshine National Rezone\Design dwg\PUD Zoning Exhibit 8-27-25.dwg - LAST SAVED: = NEW SHRUB BK&M LLC NEW RIGHT OF WAY LINE = NEW EVERGREEN NEW 5' SIDEWALK EASEMENT AS NEEDED FOR RIGHT TURN BUFFER YARD TYPE D LANE IMPROVEMENTS 6' SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO R-SF ZONING = NEW UNDERSTORY TREE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION OF = NEW CANOPY TREE VARYING WIDTH. TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION = ±2,275 SF CONTINUOUS ROW OF EVERGREEN TREES PLACED 8' O.C. (OR 8' TALL PRIVACY FENCE) WITHIN BUFFER YARD ADJACENT TO R-SF 20' WIDE BUFFER YARD TYPE D FUTURE NEW RIGHT TURN ADJACENT TO R-SF ZONING LANE BY CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BUILDABLE AREA - 35 FEET TALL 30° BULK PLANE FROM R-SF 6' SIDEWALK S NATIONAL AVENUE Date: 20' WIDE BUFFER YARD TYPE D ADJACENT TO R-SF ZONING BUILDABLE AREA - 50 FEET TALL 30° BULK PLANE FROM R-SF DISTANCE FROM CENTERLINE OF NATIONAL 75 FT 30 0 30 RAISED CONCRETE ISLAND No.: Description: TO PREVENT LEFT TURN OUT 11/6/2025 10:29:03 AM - PLOTTED: 11/6/2025 10:55:55 AM FRONTAGE GREEN Scale: 1" = 30' SPACE 10 SQ.FT/LF BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED ELEVATIONS BASED ON CITY OF SPRINGFIELD BENCHMARK 513 SURVEY BY CJW ELEVATION 1341.34 NAVD88 DATE 08-27-25 DWG PUD DESIGN CJW DISTANCE FROM DRAWN CJW UTILITY PROVIDERS: CHECKED CJW FRONTAGE GREEN WATER & GAS SEWER CENTERLINE OF SPACE 10 SQ.FT/LF SCALE HOR. 1" = 30' C.U. NATURAL GAS & WATER ENGINEERING CITY OF SPRINGFIELD E SUNSHINE STREET SUNSHINE 62.5 FT SCALE VERT. N/A MR. BRANDON BRAUN MR. MATT TAYLOR 1321 W. CALHOUN, P.O. BOX 551 840 BOONVILLE AVE SPRINGFIELD, MO 65801 SPRINGFIELD, MO 65801 TEL. (417) 831-8445 TEL. (417) 831-8445 COD ELECTRIC ATTACHMENT CITY UTILITIES ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION MR. PETER TEUDAN 828 N. PRINCE LANE SHEET NO. RAISED CONCRETE ISLAND SPRINGFIELD, MO 65802 TO PREVENT LEFT TURNS OUT TEL. (417) 874-8006 CJW NO. 24002 01 OF 01 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 31 of 34 Page 40 of 93  Attachment 3 AFFIDAVIT OF NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION AND MEETING SUMMARY 1. Request change to zoning from: _R_-_ s_F to 0-2 (existing zoning) (proposed zoning) 2. Meeting Date & Time: August 21, 2025 - 4:00-6:30 3_ Meeting Location: TownePlace Suites - 2009 S National Ave. Sprignfield, MO 4. Number of invitations that were sent: _1_6_ 4 _ 5. How the mailing list was generated: _C_it_y_o_f_S_p_r_ in_g_fi_ el_d _ 6. Number of neighbors in attendance (attach a sign-in sheet): _1_7 _ 7. List the verbal comments and how you plan to address any issues: (City Council does not expect all the issues to be resolved to the neighborhood's satisfaction; however, the developer must explain why the issues cannot be resolved). - Existing traffic volume and cut through traffic. Development on corner would only make traffic worse. - Proposed uses. Neighborhood would like to see the corner remain single family residential or a park/garden - Step down zoning. Concern that 3-4 story office is not step down. - Existing homes are not being maintained. - Architecture of proposed use will not be consistent with neighborhood. 8. List or attach the written comments and how you plan to address any issues: - We believe that with 0-2 zoning the traffic pattern will be normalized based on the allowable uses. In addition to a regular traffic pattern ROW provided by the developer will improve traffic at national & Sunshine by allowing for a new right turn lane. Traffic calming will be added to the neighborhood to help reduce and control cut through traffic. - Residential and park uses are allowed under 0-2 and are included in the COD. However, the development team believes that residential single family is not appropriate for the 2nd busiest intersection in Springfield and that it would be better suited for office or mixed use. - Looking at the intersection of national and sunshine we believe that office/mixed use is step down/transitional zoning. The 3 other corner of the intersection have an 8 story hospital, strip retail center and 2 story medical clinic. While it is adajcent to a reisdential neighborhood it is a step down from the residential and institutional uses. - Development team has a included a variety of architectural standards in the language so that any new development will be designed in a way to include and match architectural components of the UH neighborhood I, C,C,v,~ W1 VVV\ (print name}, attest that the neighborhood meeting was held on <a-Z- \ - Z ~ (month/date/year), and is at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing and in accordance with the attached "Neighborhood Notification and Meeting Process." Printed name of person completing affidavit City of Springfield, Missouri - Development Review Office - 840 Boonville, Springfield, MO 65802 - 417.864.1611 Application for Zoning Map Amendment & Planned Developments *Fees are non-refundable Planning and Zoning Commission Page 32 of 34 Page 41 of 93  Page 42 of 93 ~ -~ () rt- -9 ("' ('- Q <> \P \.9 /10 ~ \ \i' tr> I 0) ~ -p r'-- \ cf' .s '9 I ~ ~ ~ c"6 C: rl ~ Planning and Zoning Commission Page 33 of 34 0 ~ \ """' -( ,--r- N LO ('. (1) C"\I ~ __, a:: ~ I I LU C"\I ~ :r' -:c: I ~ 00 ~ :c: ..... Cl) I :c: tfj :.) Cl) :c: Cl) "O C: (ti ...J -:c: ~ ~ .. C II) r) - ~ d _.. ~ - (!) Cl) .. 0 ± j -- w . 0 ~ ~ i:: ~ 'J (:) ~ ~ \L "9 ~ \j\ ~ -- M. o,/\ ~ ~ z  EI w·ro Planning and Zoning Commission Page 34 of 34 Page 43 of 93 From: boyer50@mediacombb.net To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: Comment Card Date: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 8:42:22 AM Comment Card Date: August 12, 2025 Telephone No. (417) 887-4811 Your Name: Mark G. Boyer Your Address: 1140 E. Stanford St., Springfield, MO 65807 Project Address: Northwest Corner of National Ave. and Sunshine Comments: When is this going to stop? No matter if it is Duda or Wynn, it is the same thing over and over and over again. There has to be a limit to how many times someone can propose a change in rezoning of property. Otherwise, there is no end to it. After a process that lasted years with Duda, why are we being drawn into this again? We (the neighborhood) do not want that corner rezoned; this is a neighborhood, not a business. I beg Planning and Zoning to stop seeing dollars ($$$) and start seeing the real people who live in University Heights Neighborhood. See the people who inhabit the neighborhood, and who do not want the corner developed into businesses. And then, after seeing people instead of dollar signs, put an end to this; close it for good. Please. If you look to see people, you would see that there are already too many cars and trucks cutting through the neighborhood. Developing the corner of National and Sunshine will only add more cars to the area, and more cars and trucks are not needed. Already at peak times, cars are lined up on National for four blocks across the intersections of University, Stanford, Kingsbury, Portland, and often beyond. A business on the corner of Sunshine and National would turn the neighborhood streets of University and Stanford into main arteries. Many cars cut through University, Stanford, Kingsbury, and Portland to avoid the light at National and Sunshine, if they are intending to make a right turn onto Sunshine. And those who do that speed through the neighborhood streets with no police around to give tickets! Businesses on the corner of Sunshine and National would only increase the traffic on and through neighborhood streets. A neighborhood is where people live, not where businesses are located. Businesses are located in business districts. Neighborhoods should be kept neighborhoods; that was the presupposition when people bought homes in University Heights. Business space is available on the northeast corner of National and Sunshine, and that business strip has been open for several years already. It is very difficult to get to those businesses and very difficult to get out of those businesses, and the same bottle neck will be created if businesses are allowed to occupy the northwest corner of Sunshine and National. University Heights Neighborhood contains some of the oldest homes in Springfield. I live in one built in 1918 before the neighborhood was founded in 1925. While in principle I am not opposed to the development of businesses, I am opposed to the destruction of old neighborhoods. Once it begins, there is no end to how much will be lost block by block. Part of a city’s grandeur is appreciating and preserving its heritage in old buildings. There is an integrity to an old building that needs to be preserved. In University Heights there are no Planning and Zoning Commission Page 35 of 51 Page 44 of 93 cookie cutter houses; every home is different and needs to be preserved instead of being torn down in order to make way for businesses. If that corner is rezoned, many people in University Heights will move away, and that will begin the destruction of this neighborhood. Is that what the city wants? Property values throughout the neighborhood will drop if businesses begin to be added; no one wants to live next to or near a business; no one will want to buy a house next to or near a business; there is enough noise on National and Sunshine without adding more traffic. People who live in University Heights Neighborhood do not want a business in their neighborhood. They have expressed this several times in the past and several times more recently. How loud do they need to shout before they are heard by the people they elected to hear and serve them? Is the Planning and Zoning Commission going to listen to them? They have lived in the neighborhood long before someone wanted to build a business there. Would YOU want a business removing houses and increasing traffic and noise going into your neighborhood? Please do not rezone the northwest corner of Sunshine and National for business purposes.. Please do not grant any more requests to have homes demolished in the University Heights Neighborhood. Please keep the neighborhood intact. And please put a stop to requests for Neighborhood Meetings and Comment Cards about rezoning proposals. Then, both you and all of us can stop this ridiculous ongoing battle to change the zoning and develop the northwest corner of National Ave. and Sunshine. Thank You, Mark G. Boyer Planning and Zoning Commission Page 36 of 51 Page 45 of 93 From: Matthew Calihman To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: Re: resident opposed to rezoning the corner Sunshine and National Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 8:47:52 PM Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: I am a resident of University Heights, and I am writing to urge you to reject the proposal to rezone the corner of Sunshine and National. That corner is part of a stable, safe, clean middle-class neighborhood of single-family historic residences. Almost without exception, these homes are very well maintained and add a lot of value to the city. Springfield does not have many such neighborhoods, and University Heights would be the envy of many other municipalities. A redevelopment project of the sort being proposed has no goal apart from further enriching the developer, but the proposal puts University Heights at risk. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Matthew Calihman 1533 S. Clay Ave., Springfield, MO 65807 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 37 of 51 Page 46 of 93 From: Maggie Castrey To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: Planning and Zoning consideration for National and Sunshine Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 5:16:12 PM Dear Hard-working City Staff, We offer the following perspectives because neighborhoods contribute far more to the city than property taxes, hence we should be considered equally valued investors in our community. Forward SGF comprehensive plan requires that before city council can grant rezoning, seven review questions must be evaluated and balanced. Q1. Is it consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and any other plan, policy or guidance adopted pursuant to that plan? No. The Forward SGF plan emphasizes preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods, compatibility and benefit to existing neighborhoods, adaptive re- use of existing buildings rather than demolition, and preservation of quality of life and quality of place. Q2. Has the area changed since the existing zoning has been in place? Is it in the public interest to rezone the property? No. University Heights has been fully occupied and maintained for 100 years. BK&M three years ago created the only vacant lots in the entire neighborhood. Legal experts point out that the owner of the property cannot create their own changed conditions. The deliberate blighting of properties by the developer should not be rewarded. Developers have been deliberately blighting that residential property for more than a decade, and BK&M intends to blight and destroy five more homes. The city must also look at the wider area around the neighborhood. A birds-eye view reveals the overwhelming preponderance of development in this area is residential. Q3. Will the proposed rezoning enable development in character with existing or anticipated development in the area considering: a. The design of streets, civic spaces and other open space; Would reduce neighbor access and use of University Street. Will remove the residential character of the street and adjacent homes. b. The mix, density, or intensity of potential uses; Proposed 29 residences per acre compared to current average three homes per acre in neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 38 of 51 Page 47 of 93  c. The pattern, scale, and format of buildings and sites enabled by district standards; Traditional neighborhood is entirely residential, almost entirely SFR. Putting style restrictions on proposed exteriors cannot make four-story office or apartment buildings compatible nor appropriate d. The compatibility with and transition to other districts, development, or uses in the vicinity; Not a transition but a reproduction of Cox development across the six lanes of traffic on Sunshine. Would drastically exceed the scope of the largest buildings currently in U Heights. Carves away a section of a previously intact neighborhood Violent assault on neighborhood quality of life. Adds significant turning traffic in an already congested area. Will compound bottlenecks. e. Any reasonably anticipated negative impacts can be mitigated by applicable development standards or should planning, design, and engineering practices applicable to the site. BK&M concessions in design cannot mitigate the problems of inappropriate intensity and scale. Destruction of residential quality of life. f. The entirety of what may be enabled by the zoning district shall be considered with the above criteria. No assurances to date what will be built there. Proposal would allow up to 29 units per acre in an area that currently averages three residences per acre. This is not a transition. Q4. Can the city service and support the rezoned uses in the proposed district, including capacity of the surrounding street network and access on specific street frontages. Sunshine is already overloaded and second busiest intersection in the city. Restrictions on University Street will create undue hardship for University Heights neighbors. A dozen failing commercial properties along Sunshine need the city’s support in redevelopment, instead of rezoning more residences for a proposal that is a pig in a poke. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 39 of 51 Page 48 of 93 Q5. Reasonable viable economic use of the subject property will be precluded if the proposed rezoning is denied. In this traditional neighborhood, the most appropriate and viable economic use is homes, which will continue when City Council upholds the SFR zoning. By seeking to aggregate 8 properties, BK&M seeks to destroy the integrity of a 100-year-old neighborhood, and should not be allowed to do so. The neighborhood has told BK&M we would welcome appropriate improvements allowable within the existing SFR zoning. Weirdly, BK&M now includes in their latest rezoning scheme five uses ALREADY ALLOWABLE, some requiring variances, in SFR zoning. 1. replacing homes with homes 2. community garden 3. church, museum, art gallery, library 4. park and playground 5. short term rentals Q6. The recommendations of any professional staff or advisory review bodies, and any additional testimony or evidence on the record. This is inappropriate development proposal. Hundreds of objections from neighbors NO SUBSTANTIAL NEED for the development has been established by city staff to support rezoning. 7. Any relevant information submitted or presented at the public hearing Neighborhood testimony uniformly opposed rezoning for three years. Rezoning will harm the neighborhood in many ways, including starting a domino effect that continues along the corridor. Thank you for your consideration, Maggie Castrey Planning and Zoning Commission Page 40 of 51 Page 49 of 93 From: Kevin Ray Evans To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: Letter in opposition to BK&M"s petition to rezone properties at Sunshine and National to Office 02 Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:34:14 PM Dear Chair and Commissioners, I write this letter in opposition to rezoning of the seven properties at the corner of National and Sunshine from SFR to Office 02. I outline the reasons below: 1. THE STUDY: The Sunshine Corridor Study literally is in the middle of designing a unified plan for the entire thoroughfare between Glenstone and Kansas Expressway. We, neighbors and stakeholders, were permitted to present our ideas to the consultants and city staff. This study is a taxpayer funded effort that will cost $700,000. Rezoning without knowing the results of the study would be disastrous to the entire effort. In my opinion, the proposal should be voted down unanimously or withdrawn. 2. THE PLAN OR LACK THEREOF: Office 02 would allow buildings up to 4 stories tall. That would be ridiculously tall for building that ostensibly would become the de facto anchor of a neighborhood that ForwardSGF regarded as “Traditional Residential” in words as well as on maps. Why do the proposers of this rezoning petition presume to know better what to do with properties in our neighborhood than the hundreds (or thousands?) of citizens and many consultants who made the plan? What parts of the ForwardSGF effort, passed by City Council, utterly should be disregarded? 3. THE NEGLECT: There are some blighted, poorly maintained, and underutilized commercial areas along Sunshine between National and Glenstone. Those areas are detrimental to the quality of life in neighborhoods that include and border them. Fix that problem, please. Don’t make it worse by extending potential neglect into yet another neighborhood. 4. THE NIMBY INSULT: University Heights is a quiet neighborhood that already is host to several thriving businesses at the corner of Sunshine and Campbell, from Jefferson west to the “Chicken Strip – East,” and we are “Kitty-Corner Neighbors” of the largest tourist attraction in the State of Missouri (Bass Pro Shops). We welcome well-thought-out plans that enhance our traditional residential neighborhood, but with the proposal put forward, there is no plan, no renderings, no thought other than offload properties that have become burdens to the owners. 5. THE TRAFFIC: I don’t think I need to reiterate arguments of current and projected congestion for this area. It is significant, and it would pose a significant deterrent to any future builder. 6. THE FACT OF THE MATTER: Neighbors know best. There are many things that can be built in SFR zoning: a park with a placemaking feature, appropriately sized Planning and Zoning Commission Page 41 of 51 Page 50 of 93  housing, a church, a community center. This corner is a gateway to Bass Pro Shops Headquarters, just like Springfield’s Grant Street Corridor is to the west. We want to preserve and enhance the green corridor that is Sunshine Street between National and Sunshine School. 7. THE HISTORY: Sunshine was once a calm, quiet country road that needlessly became, between National and Jefferson, a 0.77 mile stretch of stroad, still residential, but unfriendly to pedestrians, strollers, and cyclists. We want to take it back for the sake of Springfield and University Heights and Seminole-Holland neighborhoods. It should be the showplace for the city as visitors travel from all over the Midwest to come to Bass Pro. It should not become one more mismatched structural landscape with a high-rise eyesore surrounded quaint but depreciating housing stock and lots of traffic. UHNA held meetings with the developers at the request of Councilman Adib-Yazdi, where we expressed our vision of the corner of Sunshine and National. BK&M rejected each proposal out of hand. BK&M then hosted a meeting and presented their plan to seek rezoning to Office 02 with no notification of change from GR to Office 02 to the neighbors, and which they had filed the day before their required meeting with neighborhoods. If that is the sort of planning and forethought that represents the developer’s intent, why is a neighborhood meeting even required by the city? I oppose this proposed rezoning petition. In fact, University Height Neighborhood Association (UHNA) board and officers unanimously stand in opposition to the proposal. Best regards, Kevin Ray Evans 953 E. Linwood Dr. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 42 of 51 Page 51 of 93 From: Donna Farr To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: Z-20-2025/COD 276 Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 2:40:12 PM Hello, I am a resident of University Heights (UH) neighborhood and am submitting this as my ‘comment card’ related to the Z-20–2025, COD 276 zoning case involving 1111, 1119, 1133, 1141 E. Sunshine, 1739, 1745, 1755 S. National, and 1138 E. University Street. My name is Donna Farr Hemann and I live at 1039 E. University Street. I serve on the University Heights Neighborhood Association Board of Directors and am a previous President of the organization. I attended the recent neighborhood meeting held by BK&M, so my comments below reflect our 4 year history addressing this rezoning request as well as the most recent information conveyed by the applicants. Recently, the University Heights Neighborhood Association provided a public statement unanimously opposing re-zoning. We did this for reasons we all agree upon, as well as for reasons unique to each of us. One of the most important reasons I oppose this rezoning is because the stretch of Sunshine/National that comprises our south and east borders best serves the community and our neighborhood by remaining a GREEN CORRIDOR. 'Green Corridors' are stretches of vegetation that link larger natural areas and green spaces within cities, and UH has the unique quality of being a cornerstone of an extensive green corridor connecting to the Water Wise Garden, green fields adjacent to Perry Tennis Courts, 30-acre Phelps Grove Park, Fassnight Creek and Fassnight Creek Greenway. To borrow my fellow Board member’s term, it is quite literally a green lung that breathes for the now concrete jungle which surrounds it. Importantly, this green lung enhances climate resilience, biodiversity, offers myriad mental and physical health benefits, reduces flooding, urban heat and noise, and creates significant traffic calming effects for long stretches of surrounding streets. It provides vital support for wildlife and various ecosystems, bringing hawks, foxes, deer, possums, and other animals into the heart of the City in a safe way that enhances quality of life and place. In 2024 a new 7-Brew coffee shop was approved, eliminating the residential zoning across from a church and elementary school at Sunshine and Jefferson. Sunshine from Jefferson going west was already over saturated with relatively new commercial development that had created dangerous ingress/egress and traffic chaos. Shortly after opening, Donald Abraham was killed in a head-on collision in front of that business. He was 54 years old and referred to as “an amazing, kindhearted caring man who would give you the coat off his back even if it was the only coat he had.” The News-leader reported he was traveling west on Sunshine and collided with a southbound vehicle "in the heavily trafficked intersection bordered by an elementary school, a church, homes and businesses.” Please realize the applicant’s desire to commercialize University Height’s life-saving Planning and Zoning Commission Page 43 of 51 Page 52 of 93 green corridor is a terrible mistake for residents of the Neighborhood, City, and for travelers passing through. Despite a recent, formal survey of UH residents which shows 86% hold single-family residential living as a top value, the benefits of our zoning reach far beyond our neighbors. We hope you will recommend maintaining a residentially zoned corner which would allow for non-traffic related, desirable redevelopment on the land where BK&M razed homes, such as green space with art and park-like plantings. Re-zoning would certainly lead to damages that far exceed hypothetical benefits and would likely result in more tragedies such as the one that cost Donald Abraham his life. Thank you for considering the value University Heights and its residents have added to the City for the past 100 years. With appreciation for your service and warm regards, Donna Farr Hemann Board of Directors University Heights Neighborhood Association Planning and Zoning Commission Page 44 of 51 Page 53 of 93 From: Darron Hemann To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: Comment Card Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:12:08 PM This is the first time you received an email from this sender (submissions@dcjamrecords.com). Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. Secured by Check Point Hello, I am a resident of University Heights (UH) neighborhood and am submitting this as my ‘comment card’ related to the Z-20–2025, COD 276 zoning case involving 1111, 1119, 1133, 1141 E. Sunshine, 1739, 1745, 1755 S. National, and 1138 E. University Street. My name is Darron Hemann and I live at 1039 E. University Street. I am writing today to let the record show that I am adamantly opposed to the rezoning request by BK&M on the corners of National Avenue and Sunshine Street. The builder has recently admitted in our neighborhood meetings that he has no plans to develop this land himself. His only intention at this point is to get it re-zoned and sell it to the highest bidder. That alone should be a disqualifier. UH residents should not have to live in fear of what might or might not be going in on that corner. We have invested heavily in our neighborhood and in our properties and deserve better than that. I truly believe that this land should be left single-family residential. The builder states that the traffic count is very high and that is why it should be rezoned commercial. I would counter by saying I agree that the traffic count is very high, but that’s the exact reason why it should not be considered for that type of development. In fact, I believe the traffic count is so dangerously high that it would be nearly impossible to get in and out of that corner and would force a tremendous amount of traffic coming into our neighborhood off of University and Hampton Streets. Keeping the corner residential or turning it into a green space would be the best option for the city and our residents. After all, there are multiple places in the immediate area that are already zoned Planning and Zoning Commission Page 45 of 51 Page 54 of 93  commercial that would make much better options. Thank you for your consideration to this important matter. Yours truly, Darron J Hemann Wells Fargo Advisors First Vice President-Investment Officer PIM Portfolio Manager Senior Investment Advisor Morse, Hemann, Mangan, Gelshiemer Management Group    Planning and Zoning Commission Page 46 of 51 Page 55 of 93 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 47 of 51 Page 56 of 93 From: Anne Griffin To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov; Council; Schrag, Jeff; Cameron, David Subject: UHN/BK&M Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 1:27:16 PM To: P&Z Commission, City Council, Mayor Schrag, and David Cameron When developers present a proposal, I believe the job of city leaders and planners is not only to look at what the development could bring to the city, but what its construction would destroy. Developments that disturb unique areas of a city, promoted in the name of progress and economics but based only on a concept, should not be prioritized but scrutinized. Power brokers need to weigh new construction against its consequential destruction. Sometimes what will be destroyed is unique, not just to immediate neighborhoods but to the entire city. Examples: Sequiota Park is unique to this city, and what makes it unique would have been destroyed or dramatically altered by a large apartment complex built right across the street. University Heights is a unique neighborhood, precisely defined by its bordering streets and valued for its history and stability. Encroachment into these borders by modern development would downgrade if not destroy much of what makes it unique. For 100 years this self-contained set of homes has provided the distinct University Heights housing option to many, convenient especially for workers at two of Springfield's major employers, MSU and Mercy, and others wanting less dependency on cars. Government efficiency isn't just about speed and better defined codes. Rating the unique value of what would be destroyed alongside the value of a proposal should be included in the first stage when a developer approaches the city with a plan. Early awareness, acknowledgement and adjustments to negative impacts could help avoid contestable issues and delays. Possible questions: Is this build a need at this location or an ideation? What is the cost/loss to the neighborhood/community? Is what's lost replicable? Is the build replicable elsewhere? Who is reaping the most benefit from developing at this location? The city? The neighborhood? The developer? Citizens will be less likely to rise up in opposition if equal due process and respect are given to their quality of life choices and investments in living in Springfield. Thank you for your time and consideration Anne Griffin - Planning and Zoning Commission Page 48 of 51 Page 57 of 93 From: Jeff VanDenBerg To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: Opposition to rezoning University Heights properties Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:36:20 PM Dear City Staff and Planning and Zoning Commissioners, I am writing in opposition to the most recent University Heights rezoning request by BK&M. You are well familiar with the arguments neighbors and others in our community have shared during previous rezoning attempts. Let me add two additional thoughts. First, the city is in the middle of a $700,000 Sunshine Corridor Study. The section of Sunshine between Jefferson/Kimbrough and National is a critical zone under community discussion, and spot rezoning the properties around Sunshine and National would most obviously preempt the study's findings. The corridor study has been a model of gathering wide community input and thoughtful reflection. Let's please respect this taxpayer-funded process. Second, because BK&M has stated they are seeking rezoning in order to sell the properties, we should not think of this as a development decision. Rather, we should disaggregate our thinking about the eight properties. There is no compelling need to rezone all of them as a whole. This is particularly essential when considering the property on University Street which is unquestionably outside any arguments about the Sunshine and National intersection. It is instead an inappropriate rezoning deep into the heart of historic University Heights residences. There are plenty of solutions to the traffic problem on the property directly at the corner of National and Sunshine that do not demand wholesale rezoning of all eight of BK&M's properties. The neighborhood shared constructive ideas about this in our meeting with BK&M organized by Councilmember Adib-Yazdi, but BK&M was not interested in anything short of a profit-motivated rezone and sell outcome. As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the vibrant University Heights neighborhood, I urge you to reject this speculative rezoning proposal so that we can think creatively, constructively, and in keeping with community-wide, tax-payer funded input that benefits the whole city. Respectfully, Jeff VanDenBerg 801 E. Kingsbury St. Springfield, MO 65807 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 49 of 51 Page 58 of 93 From: Pamella Vodicka To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: ATTN: Bob Hosmer...RE: Zoning Case: z-20-2025, COD 276 Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 8:23:33 PM This is the first time you received an email from this sender (vodickapk@yahoo.com). Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. Secured by Check Point RE: Properties...1111, 1119, 1133, 1141 E. Sunshine; 1739, 1745, and 1755 S. National; and 1138 E University Zoning Case No.: z-20-2025, COD 276 To whom this concerns, We call on Planning & Zoning and City Council to reject this rezoning request. We do so primarily because Mr. Duda and BK&M shamelessly state their current plan is to sell the property after the rezoning. This overt statement can only be interpreted one way: they have no interest in the future of our University Heights neighborhood. Their blatant acknowledgement is not only an insult to our neighborhood, but also to the spirit of Forward SGF, which was intended as a guide for growth and development in the community for the next two decades. Forward SGF very clearly highlights the importance to the city of preserving traditional neighborhoods: desirable housing; property investment; ecological green corridors; strong community; quality of life; quality of place. Mr. Duda and BK&M have indicated no interest in any of these. Furthermore, I am not aware that the city has any obligation to accommodate Mr. Duda and BK&M, who demonstrably lack interest in investment in our community, or in preserving a traditional neighborhood --our neighborhood. My wife and I have recently purchased our new home in University Heights. It was built by Mr. Carl Bissman in 1933. In 2016, the Springfield News-Leader reflected on Mr. Bissman’s contribution to the unique character of University Heights and the surrounding neighborhoods. In this article, published May 30, 2016, it is reported that Mr. Richard Stahl, an associate of Mr. Bissmann, paid tribute to Mr. Bissman by saying he raised the standards of home construction in Springfield. It would be unfortunate to tarnish the legacy of Mr. Bissman and other past architects/developers who have made University Heights and the surrounding neighborhoods what they are today. The ongoing taxpayer-funded Sunshine Corridor Study encompasses every inch of our neighborhood and seeks to develop a coherent approach to managing three miles of a major street. A hasty rezoning likely would conflict with the study’s recommendations -- given Mr. Duda and BK&M’s Planning and Zoning Commission Page 50 of 51 Page 59 of 93 lack of interest in the future of this property. In alignment with Forward SGF values, we welcome improvement options that would NOT require rezoning, such as parks, gardens, churches or community spaces -- all very reasonable considerations of which Mr. Duda and BK&M demonstrate no interest. We are confident the Planning & Zoning and City Council will do the right thing and reject this rezoning request. Respectfully, David Harter and Pamella Vodicka 1020 E University Street 410-794-6281 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 51 of 51 Page 60 of 93 From: Sara Hollis To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: University Heights corner Date: Thursday, September 4, 2025 5:12:24 PM Dear Planning and Zoning, 1). I am opposed to commercial development at the corner of National and Sunshine. I do not agree with the methods the developer used to purchase homes. This was done prior to neighbors knowing what was happening. His ideas were not compatible with the neighborhood. He sought to capitalize on the proximity to Mercy. He sought to capitalize on the beautiful neighborhood, too. We have vacant buildings on Sunshine and Fremont, he could have had those, but that isn't the beautiful part, is it? It is also easier to buy things piecemeal, then declare them blighted, and apply for rezoning. He may have paid too much for the white house that was torn down, $500,000, I hear, which may have been more than market value, so Steve Plaster took advantage of him? I do not want to see the "Glensonification" of Sunshine. There is also the property on Fremont across from the day care. But he doesn't want that, I presume, because it is owned by C Arch Bay company, who would lease the land, and he can't make as much money. That horrible Cardin shopping center is an eyesore but perhaps they won't sell. I have heard rumors of a personal vendetta against Mercy by the Cardin family? 2) I would like to propose a Green Corridor concept linking the Waterwise Garden, ball field, tennis courts, the Art Museum, Phelps Grove Park, Fassnight Park, Grant Street corridor, then Jordan Valley. It could have a wall isolating the homes on the south side of University, since they are now more open. A 20-30 foot strip behind the wall could contain evergreens. In front of the wall would be greenspace. The neighborhood could be responsible for its upkeep if funds are not available. The wall could say University Heights. 3) If Mr Duda wishes to keep the houses he owns on the south side of University for executive rental, then you can't make him sell. But perhaps if he sold them he would get his money back. But definitely not sell to another developer and walk away! I'm sorry Mr Duda has spent so much money and time on engineering, but it is his fault for doing it the way he did. He mentioned the Cox Building across the street as justification. That corner was occupied by Marsh Travel since 1972, and BJ Marsh actually lived there. I would have rather it stayed a house. Mr Duda also mentioned Farmer's Park as an example of building by a neighborhood. Farmer's Park was 15.4 acres! National and Sunshine is 3 acres. There was one beautiful house there but it was torn down when Highway M was expanded, way before Farmer's Park, I believe. 4). Another option: turning the beige stucco house on National into a hospitality house? Since the first house on the corner was torn down, perhaps the one to the north of it, which is further from the intersection, could have the same usage. This would be a non-conforming use, which I interpret as it would revert to residential if no longer used as a hospitality house. There are several properties nearby such as Bambino's and Bryan Magers office which are non- conforming. The entrance could be on National as usual with the house, but the exit could be on Sunshine several hundred yards away to meet the rules of the road. This would require further discussion with the neighborhood. 5) Driving on Sunshine or National between National and Jefferson is actually pleasant due to Page 61 of 93 the lack of unpleasant commercial spaces and traffic pulling in and out. 7 Brew has produced a lot of traffic. If traffic is observed, it seems like those streets are used by people looking to get down National or Sunshine as fast as they can. 6). I have lived in Springfield since 1964. My first home was on Portland. The first restaurant I ate at was Mexican Villa. I have lived in University Heights, Phelps Grove, Midtown, Sunshine-Holland and Rountree neighborhoods. My children attended Rountree, Jarrett and Parkview schools. I love the older homes and do not want developers imposing their view that "nobody would like living there, it's unsafe so close to a busy street" or"it's so noisy because of cars, ambulances and helicopters". That logic applies to any lofts or apartments proposed for that corner, doesn't it? I have also heard Mr Duda say the prices of the homes have become prohibitive. So would the price of an apartment, loft, or executive rental built by the developer, wouldn't it? Except he would be the one making the money. There are people who want to live in the older established neighborhoods. Yes, sometimes it is noisy, but we all can't commute to the suburbs. -- Sara Hollis, PsyD (retired) 1326 E Delmar Street Springfield, MO 65804 h 417-831-7381 c 417-818-8179 sashollis@gmail.com Page 62 of 93 Dear Commissioners, Contrary to the Staff Report assessment, Z-20-2025 COD-276 does not meet the seven requirements necessary for rezoning the NE corner of Sunshine and National in the University Heights (UH) neighborhood from SFR to O2. The Staff Report bases its judgement on two things: changing traffic patterns and changing land use patterns. These are erroneous assumptions. 1.Whether the proposed zoning district classification is consistent with the Plan. Changing the rezoning to allow for this development, especially because of its negative impact on the neighborhood, is inconsistent with the vision and goal of Forward SGF to celebrate unique neighborhoods through historic preservation and branding. The Plan “centers on the concept of… maintaining unique and quality places” essential to the community’s long term health and prosperity. The city should adhere to the concepts of the Plan. UH is the epitome of quality of place. The UH has not only survived but thrived for 100 years. The historical use, which includes this corner, has always been Single Family Residential. UH is low density with about 3 homes per acre. Homes have a wide range of value, attracting a diverse socio- economic resident from single mom to executive. Their largest investment, home buyers are willing to pay more per square foot to live in UH than in any other part of the city. UH has a very high home ownership percentage with 84% as compared to the rest of the city with 45%. (Town Charts) Sunshine Street homes are both rental and owner-occupied, with several owners locating there within the last 10 years. Natonal Street homes are 100% owner occupied. 2. Whether there are any changed or changing conditions…that make the proposed rezoning necessary. The staff claims that “there are changing conditions that make the proposed rezoning necessary”. This is an arbitrary assumption. This rezoning change is not “necessary”, especially since the Staff admits that there are other reasonable viable uses for the property. Page 63 of 93 Although the NE and SW corners have been developed within the last ten years, Sunshine and National buffer UH from these placetypes. The traffic volume is not a changing condition. Although this “intersection has some of the highest traffic volumes in the city”, the traffic count has not changed for the past 10 years. There are already blighted commercially zoned areas along Sunshine that need infill growth and development, including the NE corner of Sunshine and Fremont, just blocks away. UH does not need infill growth. The corner was once beautiful, until the owners intentionally blighted and demolished two homes, making it appear to be an area in transition. Property owners cannot manufacture their own changing conditions. 3. Whether the range of uses…are compatible with the uses permitted on other property in the immediate vicinity. Even though there are nonresidential uses on the other three corners, the NE, NW, and SW areas are predominantly SFR. Staff ignores the fact that the Plan states that major roadways or buffers can separate placetypes. A one-two block transition zone between placetypes is desirable, but natural boundaries, such as roadways, also serve as a transition from one placetype to another. The major arteries, Sunshine and National, are the transition zones. 4. Whether adequate utility and sewer and water facilities exist or can be provided to serve the uses…. It is uncertain whether adequate utility services exist or can be provided, because of the wide range of uses that would be permitted, including the extreme of a four story office complex or an 80 unit apartment building. The applicant does not plan to develop the property but to unload it. A new owner could decide on one of these extreme options. 5. The impact the uses…would…have upon the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and traffic safety in the vicinity. It has already been shown in earlier applications that the vehicular impact would be horrendous, especially if one of the extreme options is chosen. Page 64 of 93 The proposed road safeguards and traffic calming measures will not be enough to stop the flow of traffic into the neighborhood as drivers already cut-through the neighborhood, starting at Portland, to avoid the intersection. The residents of the two homes facing the north ingress/egress, on University Street, will be the most impacted. This is a local street and not part of a commercial corridor. These homes will inevitably lose value. With more than 65000 vehicles crossing the intersection daily, the city should be trying to relieve traffic instead of encouraging more traffic. 7. Whether a reasonably viable economic use of the subject property will be precluded if the proposed zoning is denied. Staff admits that no viable economic use will be precluded, if the application is denied. Since there are alternatives to the rezoning, specifically adhering to the SFR designation, this is spot zoning. Considering the lack of affordable housing in Springfield, destroying even 5 more single family houses is irresponsible. The city should instead protect these homes. The failure of the strip mall on the NE quadrant and the general retail shops on the SW quadrant foreshadows the viability of any endeavor on the NW quadrant. 8. Comments This is a lose/lose situation for UH. If any of the proposed land uses are successful, then the residents will be penalized by lower property values, higher crime rates, increased vehicular traffic, and way of life. If they fail, then the neighborhood will suffer the same consequence, but also with an abandoned eyesore. In the meantime, more speculators will want to take advantage of the precedent to rezone, creating a domino effect along Sunshine and National, continuing the Glenstonification of Springfield corridors. The applicant has shown a lack of good judgement throughout this process. He took a business risk, purchasing the SFR property at more than fair market value, before getting rezoning approval, which is not customary or advisable. He did not canvas residents of UH for their views. He did not heed the warning from P&Z that UH might be governed by deed restrictions. He recklessly Page 65 of 93 blighted then demolished two of the houses, devaluing the properties even further. His business plan was as flimsy as the plans for developing the property – he had none, as it was ever “evolving”. After three years of almost unanimous opposition, the residents of UH and citizens of the city have sent a clear message. The applicant has grown tired of it, wanting to rezone it, only to unload it. The wide range of uses that would still be permitted is designed to attract a buyer. He has come full circle, much like the original iteration of “The Heights”, an office complex or a residential building is totally inconsistent with the neighborhood in scale and intensity. UH has far more to lose financially than the applicant. It is not up to UH to bail him out of a speculative business venture. ******************* It has been noted in Forward SGF that the city of Springfield is not esthetically pleasing, which shows a lack of pride and investment in the community.(p 28) Given the number of visitors to Mercy Hospital and BassPro Shop, coming from outside the city, it seems that this major intersection countered that image, until two historic homes were blighted then demolished. The remaining houses, sitting on one of the few green corridors in the city, are unique architecturally. The only suitable structures for this corner, which will benefit the neighborhood and the city, are these single family homes, which display Springfield’s rich heritage of almost a century ago. Since Forward SGF prioritizes the beautification of Springfield corridor, Springfield legislatures should respect the Plan and the wishes of the citizens of Springfield. Respectfully, Norma D. Capeci Page 66 of 93 From: Steve Brooks To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: Proposed zoning change at the corner of National and Sunshine Date: Monday, September 8, 2025 2:52:58 PM Planning and zoning commissioners, I live in the University Heights neighborhood just a bit west of the proposed development. Our 2 children went to Sunshine Elementary, Jarrett Middle School, and Parkview High School throughout that era of their educational time, as we have lived here 40 years. Some have asked, does the City owe it to BK&M to rezone this area? No. The City acknowledges BK&M made a purely speculative investment, by definition a high risk. It is not the city’s job to bail him out, nor the neighborhood’s. If a speculator made a bad investment, then that is on them. Another question is should spot rezoning be granted before the Sunshine Corridor Study is completed in 2026? I say no. The purpose of the Sunshine Corridor Study is to give us a comprehensive plan for that area. Every inch of University Heights is in the corridor study area. Any spot rezoning approved before that threatens to conflict with the corridor study and do irreparable harm. Many of us wonder about the vacant retail property, zoned commercial, 1 block to the east, at Fremont and National. A strip center sits vacant, the prior pool company building is overgrown with weeds, and a former restaurant sits vacant. Why would this company want to fight the battle at National and Sunshine (with so much traffic), when so much property is available a block away. If they succeed in the rezoning, will we soon have more vacant retail on this corner of National and Sunshine? Perhaps it is time to consider a moratorium on these proposed developments, near historical neighborhoods, until we can create appropriate plans with the neighborhoods, in keeping with the proposals in the Forward SGF plan. Steve Brooks 417 840-4446 Page 67 of 93 From: David Hutchison To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: Rezoning Request BK&M LLC Date: Thursday, September 11, 2025 10:30:27 AM Z-20-2025 COD 276 1739,1745,1755 S. National. 1138 E University. 1111E,1119,1133,1141 E Sunshine St I object to the rezoning of these properties. BK&M LLC, purchased these properties knowing they were zoned for single family homes. They calculated their risk based upon the City of Springfield would rezone the properties to commercial use. This has not happened, resulting BK&M LLC has said they abandoned their Plans to develop the properties. BK&M LLC wants to rezone the properties and sell them to another developer. Caveat emtore…let the buyer beware! This principle places the risk on the buyer! The owners now realize the business risk they knowingly took was a huge mistake. They now want the City of Springfield to bail them out of their business error! They could donate the land for green spaces. The homes could be used for affordable housing. I object to the proposed limited access in and out of University St. University Heights streets are now already used to avoid the heavy traffic on National and Sunshine during peak hours. Living at the corner of Kingsbury and Hampton, I have witnessed this. Some people are courteous the way they drive. Others drive dangerously, speeding and rolling through stop signs. There is no guarantee that delivery trucks will not use University Heights streets for their access to deliver goods to the development. I also object to the notion of a conditional overlay development proposal. The commercial buildings East of National on the north side of Sunshine have low occupancy. With the exceptional amount of traffic at peak times any development will have a problem attracting people. Think of the problems at the north side of Sunshine near Campbell! Thank you, David Hutchison 1101 E Kingsbury Springfield, MO 65807 417-830-5268 Page 68 of 93 Page 69 of 93 Page 70 of 93 Page 71 of 93 Page 72 of 93 Page 73 of 93 Page 74 of 93 Page 75 of 93 Page 76 of 93 Page 77 of 93 Page 78 of 93 Page 79 of 93 From: Jeff VanDenBerg To: Zoning@springfieldmo.gov Subject: Opposition to Sunshine/National rezoning application Date: Saturday, November 15, 2025 11:58:29 AM Dear Planning and Zoning Committee, I am writing in opposition to the amended rezoning application for the eight properties in University Heights. In addition to the well-discussed concerns that have wisely guided your four previous denial recommendations, it is critical to highlight that the amended proposal is an expansion of the permitted uses from the most recent application. The addition of a hotel in the COD makes this proposal less acceptable than its previous iteration. A hotel is self- evidently out of character with the University Heights neighborhood. It would clearly diminish quality of place for the immediate residents and the neighborhood generally. It is a more intensive and intrusive use (parking, sanitation needs, and commercial traffic) than the previous O2 application. I urge you once again to reject this attempt to carve up and commercialize our 100 year old historic and vibrant residential neighborhood. Thank you for your service to our community. Respectfully, Jeff VanDenBerg 801 E. Kingsbury St. Page 80 of 93  November 15, 2025 Kevin Ray Evans 953 E. Linwood Dr. Springfield, Missouri 65807 To: City of Springfield Planning and Zoning Committee Re: Z-20-2025 w/COD no. 276 Dear Chair and Commissioners, I write this letter in opposition to rezoning of the area near the northwest corner of Sunshine and National, especially in consideration of the COD as amended from previous proposals. It violates specific provisions of ForwardSGF (see map and text indicating traditional residential designations in the published report) and the new re-zoning classification scheme put forward by City staff, which calls for areas currently zoned as single-family residential to remain essentially the same. In fact, City staff in Planning and Development Department were tasked with visiting neighborhood associations to communicate that message. When is enough enough? One of the topics that rarely comes up in discussions at public hearings is the toll on the physical and mental health that citizens, neighborhoods, and neighborhood associations experience when constantly pushing back against unwanted and unneeded development. It puts entire neighborhoods on edge and keeps neighborhood associations from doing the things we are commissioned with doing, fostering community well-being and belongingness by promoting safe, clean, and friendly neighborhoods. I know you will receive letters outlining the many issues that surround this proposal, so I limit my comments to two aspects. 1. Housing and Neighborhood Home Values: Originally platted in 1925, University Heights Subdivision (Sunshine to Porland and National to Kimbrough) was an upscale neighborhood from the start. According to Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), our average home value is $320K (n=698), not including apartment complexes) within the neighborhood boundaries designated by the City (area north of Sunshine, south of Bennett, between National and Campbell). East of Kimbrough Avenue it is $357K, within the area BK&Z seeks to rezone, and west of Kimbrough it is $199K. This was a snapshot of estimates home values in July 2025 when the average new home value in Springfield is $240K. We have commercial areas in our neighborhood. A portion is home to "... Chicken Strip East" at Campbell and Sunshine. Economically and culturally, we have a diverse neighborhood. We know that housing is a major issue in Springfield, but there are no vacant lots that can be Page 81 of 93 developed as housing in our neighborhood other than at the corner of National and Sunshine. A hotel and commercial development would in no way benefit the neighborhood. It would increase traffic, require paving most of the remaining land for parking, exclusive of set- backs, drive additional traffic into the neighborhood, and, in my opinion, drive property prices down. Properties peripheral to BK&M’s current holdings already are at risk of reduced value due to demolitions to neglect. The developer brought this to our neighborhood. Witness the tree that partly obstructs the sidewalk (for three years now) and removal of the 80-year-old pine tree near the corner. There is a difference between right and wrong. 2. The Green Corridor: One of my colleagues on the Board of Directors for University Heights Neighborhood Association noted (I paraphrase), “The park-like landscape and urban forest that constitutes much of our neighborhood are the lungs of the City.” I would encourage you to compare satellite imagery of downtown with the surrounding urban core. There is an abrupt shift from dull gray to vibrant green with the inner-city residential areas. Trees are good for humans; they cleanse the atmosphere of air pollution and cool the city from intense summer temperatures. I would add, "No, trees don't pay taxes, they pay dividends, and massive ones at that." We informally refer to the area along Sunshine east of Jefferson Avenue and north along National Avenue as “The Green Corridor.” It is 1.75 miles with only a few brick-and-mortar businesses, dental to rental offices, and donuts to tamales. It is most laid-back stretch of driving in the city and it, unlike most other major thoroughfares, maintains walkability. At the last public hearing on this petition for rezoning before the commission, City staff indicated that regulations do not require that rezoning wait for completion of the ongoing $700,000 corridor study. It may not be required, but it would be most prudent to do so. I recognize that commissioners may hold a wide variety of views on development, but prudence should be an overarching theme. Please, consider the history of our area and the impact a four-story hotel would have in our neighborhood. Best regards, Kevin Ray Evans 953 E. Linwood Dr. Page 82 of 93 November 17, 2025 Dear members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, My name is Maggie Castrey, and I live at 1006 E. Linwood Drive. I am writing to oppose the requested rezoning Z-20-2025, COD No. 176. I oppose it because this proposed rezoning Z-20-2025, COD No. 176 fails seven out of eight review criteria. • Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan? It is consistent only with the new code language favoring mixed use in Traditional Neighborhoods. But the Forward SGF plan also emphasizes preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods, compatibility and benefit to existing neighborhoods, adaptive re-use of existing buildings rather than demolition, and preservation of quality of place. The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with all of those. • Are there changed or changing conditions that make the proposed rezoning necessary? The primary changed/changing condition on Sunshine and National is an increase in traffic. However, rezoning is not necessary because University Heights remained fully occupied and well-maintained until a speculator bought 1755 S National over a decade ago. He priced it as commercial property while zoned residential, putting it out of reach of homeowners, then blighted it through neglect. BK&M bought it, continues to blight through neglect, then destroyed two homes to create the only vacant lots in the entire neighborhood. Residents in other parts of the city now ask us, “Wouldn’t anything be better than those vacant lots?” A legal maxim states that a person should not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. In short, they cannot create their own changed conditions. No one in the neighborhood has asked for this rezoning. It is time for the city to stop rewarding speculators and developers for this destructive and predatory behavior. Residents desiring an urban experience will buy properties that are priced competitively for residential. • Are the proposed uses compatible with those permitted in the immediate vicinity? “Immediate vicinity” is defined as the area that is very close to a specific place or person. It refers to the immediate surroundings, neighborhood, or proximity, emphasizing a short and direct distance. The term would not include areas separated by six or 12 lanes of traffic. The uses in the proposed zoning reclassification are not compatible with the traditional University Heights neighborhood, which has a dramatically different quality of place from the commercial and institutional uses of the other three corners. Page 83 of 93  The immediate vicinity of the requested rezoning has an average residential density of three homes per acre. The requested rezoning of these 2.6 acres would allow 75 units to be constructed where seven existed before. This density is incompatible and destructive. The proposed allowable building size would dramatically exceed the volume and impact of the largest two-story homes currently in University Heights. • Will the requested uses impact vehicular and pedestrian traffic and traffic safety in the vicinity? City staff report states that the rezoning would increase traffic trips from 125 daily to 1872 daily. That’s 15 times as many trips, a 3% increase. Developing properties and ignoring 3% increases in traffic is how we ended up with 70,000 trips through this intersection! This type of increase would significantly impact the immediate neighborhood because vehicles travelling to the north or east will cut through the neighborhood to avoid restricted access and congestion on Sunshine and National. • Will the proposed rezoning correct an error in the application of this article to the subject property? There has been no error in the existing zoning. These properties have been reserved for single family residential use for 100 years. These houses were some of the most expensive built in the whole neighborhood and as recognized landmarks, they shaped a signature quality of place. • Can reasonably viable economic use of the subject property be found if the proposed rezoning is denied? City staff report states viable economic uses of this property are still available if this rezoning request is denied. The immediate vicinity provides housing and home ownership the city desperately needs. • Information submitted at the public hearing. Neighborhood testimony has uniformly opposed rezoning for three years. Eighty four percent of neighbors surveyed said they valued the single-family-residential quality of place of the neighborhood. This request will cause the same harms as previous proposals: • Destroy seven homes • Decrease safety with increased traffic routed into the neighborhood • Bring transient populations within 20 feet of property lines • Bring commercial development within 20 feet of property lines • Introduce density 10 times greater than existing • Erode neighborhood’s intact border • Destroy unique quality of place • Invite further rezoning to the West Thank you for your consideration, Maggie Castrey Page 84 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT PROJECT INFORMATION: Case Number: Land Development Code – Text Amendments Location: Citywide Applicant: City of Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission: November 20,2025 City Council: April 6, 2026 Public Notification: Legal in Springfield News Leader Staff: Justin Crighton, Assistant Director Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval Proposed motion: I move to recommend approval of the text amendment to Chapter 36 Sections 36-200 to 36- 495 of the Land Development Code of the City of Springfield, Missouri as set forth in Attachment 1 to the staff report. (All commission motions are made in the affirmative) Required Vote: A majority of those present (5 members are a quorum). PROJECT SUMMARY: Request to amend Chapter 36 Sections 36-200 to 26-495 of the Land Development Code of the City of Springfield, Missouri and adopt the amended Land Development Code as presented in Attachment 1 as a replacement. If adopted the new Land Development Code would not become effective until a new official zoning map is adopted according to the procedures set forth in the ordinance or other effective date established by City Council. LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP Page 1 85 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT Sec. 36-367. – Amendments describes the factors that Planning and Zoning Commission may consider when a request to amend the text of the zoning ordinance is before them. The findings of the commission may consider: Whether the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan. 1. Whether the proposed text amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of this article. 2. The areas of the city that are most likely to be affected by the proposed text amendment and the manner in which those areas will be affected. 3. Whether the proposed text amendment is necessitated by a change in conditions in the zoning districts affected and the nature of such changed conditions. 4. Information submitted at the public hearing. COMPATIBILITY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. The Comprehensive Plan Chapter 15, Implementation: The following actions and strategies establish the “next steps” to be taken after the adoption of the Forward SGF Comprehensive Plan. They will provide for the effective application of the Plan and continued community planning and investment, and ensure the Plan remains reflective of community needs and aspirations. They include: Chapter 5 – Land Use & Development • Land Use Planning Framework – Responding to Trends and Land Development Pressures o Increased use flexibility that promotes redevelopment and revitalization will need to be balanced by regulatory codes that promote and emphasize quality design and construction that is pedestrian focused and has a greater experience factor. o Future code changes will need to support the implementation of planning that promotes the development of places with a wide array of convenient services in proximity to amenity-rich, attractive, inviting, integrated corridors and districts that are within walking distance of neighborhood, trails, parks, and mixed-use centers with diverse housing options. o “Plans and code changes will also need to champion alignment of subsidies and other public investments and improvements with land planning to ensure housing and economic development projects are permitted and supported in places where they are best suited and equitably dispersed across the city. Chapter 7 – Neighborhoods & Housing • Goal 3. Revitalize Springfield’s Neighborhoods o (3.5) Champion Safe, Healthy, Liveable Housing and Neighborhoods Chapter 8 – Economic Development Chapter 8 – Economic Development • Goal 1. Redefine Springfield’s Narrative as a Major Competitor and Leader in the Regional Market o (1.3) Update the Code Chapter 9 – Transportation & Mobility • Goal 3. Integrate Transportation and Land Use to Support Mobility and Placemaking o (3.3) Enhance Community Character and Placemaking Page 2 86 of 93  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW STAFF REPORT Chapter 10 – Infrastructure & Community Facilities • Goal 3. Develop Infrastructure and Community Facilities in a Sustainable Manner o (3.1) Apply Sustainable Development Practices Chapter 12 – Subarea Plans • Glenstone Avenue Subarea Plan – Framework recommendations • Trafficway Street Subarea Plan – Framework recommendations • Chestnut Expressway Subarea Plan – Framework recommendations • Lake Springfield Subarea Plan – Framework recommendations • Boonville Avenue Subarea Plan – Framework recommendations Chapter 13 – Commercial Street Plan • Goal 4. Build on Commercial Street’s maker ethos and strength in artisan manufacturing district o (4.2) Ensure land use codes allow for flexible maker spaces and artisan manufacturing uses throughout the district. Chapter 15 – Implementation • Integrate Land Use, Placetypes, and Zoning o Create a strategy for updating the City Land Development Regulations and Zoning Map based on the Placemaking approach • Implementation through regulation o Implementation of interim amendments – Redevelopment on the Edges 2. Review and update the Land Development Code and other development controls to reflect policies presented in the Forward SGF Comprehensive Plan. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The City of Springfield contracted with the urban planning firm, Multistudio, beginning in 2023 to facilitate and draft new Development Codes, which will provide the City with the regulatory framework essential to implement many of the recommendations outlined in Forward SGF that will impact expansion of uses and quality of place enhancements for re- development projects. 2. Code consultant, Multistudio, completed the research and analysis phase of the code update process in the winter of 2023, which included reviewing and studying the City of Springfield’s existing codes, policies, and district standards, as well as conducting interviews. The analysis phase produced the Fiscal Impact Analysis, the Code Review Summaries, and the Development Pattern Analysis documents, all of which can be found online. 3. After the analysis phase of the code update process was concluded, the consultant began the discussion phase on, January 25, 2024, with an initial meeting of the volunteer Place Teams and a public open house. These events were an opportunity for both members of the public and individuals that expressed interest in being involved in the process to learn how the consultant is using the vision of Forward SGF to update the City’s development codes. The precedent studies set the framework for these events and other conversations with the public. In addition, the presentation boards that were at the open house can be found online at: https://www.forwardsgf.com/initiative3. Page 3 87 of 93 4. The Place Teams met again with the consultant and city staff on, June 4, 2024, to discuss their vision for future development. Based on the three Guiding Principles – “Community Design”, “Development and Design”, and “Site Design” participants were asked to share desired improvement for the four consolidated Placetypes – Neighborhoods, Corridors, Destinations, and Employment Centers and Campuses, as defined by Forward SGF. 5. The Place Teams met for a third time on December 4th, 2024, to kick off the public review of the draft code articles that were released on November 13th. Place Team members were encouraged to submit their feedback to staff at forwardsgf@springfieldmo.gov prior to City Council adoption process. 6. Multistudio and City staff worked for much of 2024 to draft a code that would integrate the recommendations from Forward SGF and be ready for public review. After the working draft’s release in mid-November, City staff provided one-on-one opportunities for members of the public to discuss the code and provide their feedback. 7. Public comments on the individual articles of the working draft continued into January of 2025. After making adjustments to the code language based on the provided input, the proposed Community Development Code was adopted by City Council in March of 2025. 8. Planning and zoning commission recommended the initiation of the text amendment contained in Attachment 1 at their, October 9, 2025, regular meeting. 9. The proposed amendments follow the guidance and recommended implementation measures identified in Forward SGF as necessary for enhancing, preserving, and creating quality of place. 10. A draft of the proposed amendments (Text Amendment #1) has been made available for public review on Forward SGF.com since February of 2025. 11. The proposed amendments are intended go into effect only after an update to the official zoning map in accordance with the procedures outlined in the ordinance which is anticipated to occur on or about April 7th 2026, pending City Council adoption. Page 88 of 93 12. These amendments have been made to correct minor imperfections in the adopted draft and to make necessary structural changes to implement the code. Briefly they include but are not limited to: a. Shift from a single “50% investment” test to sliding scale for parking triggers for site compliance. Now more than a 50% in gross floor area expansion/tear-down–rebuild will require full LDC compliance. 25–50% gross floor area expansion or more than a 20% increase in required parking will require full bufferyard & screening compliance and any new parking will meet landscaping requirements per code. Less than 25% gross floor area expansion or less than or equal to a 20% increase in required parking will require streetscape or frontage/foundation landscaping, and full screening where applicable. Table 2-1 & The matrix and notice subsections are clarified b. Site Plan Modifications (Table 2-2) carried forward/clarified (minor vs. major thresholds c. Annexation (2.10) text is organized for clarity on applicability, criteria, petition, and effect of decision (zoning classification within 6 months; permit treatment). d. Block connectivity & closed-end street limits. Clarifies connectivity standards and increases closed-end street maximum length to 800’ (from 600’) with a 30 units/access point cap; reinforces private internal access lanes for oversized parcels and non-auto connections where streets do not currently connect. e. ; Commercial Street (COM) maintained; legacy/overlay references preserved while clarifying how prior approvals persist until rezoned under the new framework. f. Applicability & thresholds: Modifications to existing sites apply proportionally; design standards apply to newly constructed areas; >50% parking-area reconstruction triggers full compliance. g. Required Parking / Internal Sidewalks: Tables and narrative retained/clarified for interpretation). h. Plant specifications & diversity—tables and criteria refined; explicit “Do Not Plant” cross-reference; native composition emphasis. i. Tree protection & prohibited activities clarified (protective fencing, grading limits, materials handling). j. Credits for existing vegetation—adds inventory by certified arborist/forester/LA and credit schedule. k. A redline version detailing all of the proposed changes has been included as Attachment 1. l. A clean copy of the Land Development Code with the proposed amendments has been included as Attachment 2. m. A log of all changes has been included as Attachment 3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment. PLANNING AND ZONING OPTIONS: The planning and zoning commission shall make one of the following recommendations in connection with each proposed change in the text of this article: 1. Recommend against the proposed change in the text amendment. 2. Recommend a change in the text amendment. 3. Recommend a change in the text amendment together with recommendations which, in the judgment of the planning and zoning commission, will ensure that the proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose and intent of this article. Page 89 of 93  ATTACHMENT 3: CHANGE LOG Key Text Amendments Article Section Brief Description of Change 1 1.03.D.4, 6 Conditional Use Permit, Conditional Overlay Districts Added clarification for the transition of CUPs and CODs 1 1.04.A.4, Administrative Review Committee Updated to function as the ARC does currently, noting that the reviews that are routed to the ARC have changed 1 1.04.B.1, Planning & Zoning Commission Added membership for consistency, as other bodies also detail their membership in this chapter. 1 1.06.D, Nonconforming Site Conditions Added criteria/triggers for levels of compliance with code for nonconforming sites 2 Table 2-1, Section 2.10 Added Annexation procedure information 2 2.01.F.4.c, Notice removing the requirement for legal description to be published with legal notice 2 2.01.H, Action by Review Bodies Added a procedure for bills to be remanded 2 2.02.B.2.f, Administrative Subdivision, Review Criteria Remove review criteria regarding lotting patterns 2 2.02.B.3.c, Administrative Subdivision, Review Procedure removed review criteria for new street to be accepted as it will require major subdivision instead of administrative 2 2.02.C.4.e, Effect of Decision clarified how long a preliminary plat is valid vs expiration 2 2.03.A.7, Site Plan Added to ensure review of nonconformities is required 2 2.05.B.3.f, Rezoning, Review Criteria clarified the role of a site plan in a zoning case 2 2.05.D, Rezoning, Effect of Decision Added to clarify requirements for rezoning with site plan 2 2.07, Variance Updated language to differentiate between a use and design variance and update review criteria 2 2.10 Annexation Added procedure for annexation 2 2.11, Historic Designations Moved from Article 10 - Not new language 3 Table 3-1, Block Sizes & Street Connectivity changed closed-end street limits from 600 to 800 feet 3 3.03.C, Street Design Types Updated language to reflect PW's desires for street design 3 3.06.B.1, Required Improvements, Applicability clarification of procedure when public improvements are required as part of a subdivision 3 3.06.C.6, Coordination with Other Facilities Added this to clarify water and electric service are required for each lot. This was at CU's request. 4 Table 4-1, COM - Commercial Street Added Commercial Street district intent statement and placetype compatability 4 Table 4-1, OS - Open Space This is a new district that is being created 4 Table 4-1, notes Added Language to Align Application of Zoning with appropriate Placetypes​ 4 Table 4-2, Open Space adding the new Open Space district to the table 4 Table 4-3, COM and OS adding Commercial Street and Open Space districts on table and directing to the district regulations for the COM district 4 Table 4-3, Small-format housing clarification on where use is permitted 4 Table 4-3, Household Living - Manufactured Dwelling adding for clarification 4 Table 4-3, Cultural Facility, Event Venue, Open Space clarifying where uses are permitted 4 Table 4-3, Utility correction and clarification 4 Table 4-3, Food & Beverage Establishment - Drive-through Added Food & Beverage Estrablishments - Drive-through as a Primary Use 4 Table 4-3, Residential Care - Transitional Housing clarification on where permitted 4 Table 4-3, Warehouse & Storage clarification on permitted vs conditional use 4 Table 4-3, Community Garden add as permitted uses within the OS district 4 Section 4.03.F.2, Group Homes removing PD DIrector's ability to waive spacing requirements between group homes 4 Section 4.03.I.2, and 5, Residential Care Made Changes to Residential Care Language per OAEH’s request; clarifying spacing requirements 4 Section 4.03.J, Urban Agricultural uses Adding specific use standards for Urban Agriculture uses 4 Table 4-4, ADU Allowances Clarifying ADU allowances; Changed to Allow One ADU in all R-SF Districts for Lots > 6k s.f. 4 Section 4.04.D.2 Home Occupation clarification of no-impact, home-based business per state statute 4 Section 4.04.I inserted standards for chickens as an accessory use 4 Section 4.04.J inserted standards for beekeeping as an accessory use 4 Section 4.06 moved General Use Restrictions from Article 10 5 Table 5-1, Residential Building & Lot Standards separated manufactured home and small format for clarification; clarified standards for open space and setback requirements 5 Figure 5-2, Apartment Complex Configuration clarified difference between conventional and connected apartment complexes 5 Figure 5-4, Corner Lot Setbacks clarified setback requirements for corner lots 5 Section 5.04.B, Frontage Design Clarified Frontage Design Standards Required for Buildings Behind the Front Building Line not immediatley adjacent to a public street 6 6.03 Table 6-1 Footnotes were accidentally struck in previous draft, added them back. 6 Figure 6-3, Front Building Line & Acccess and Parking Limits clarified front building line requirements for different frontage types and combined with Figure 6-4 to show access and parking limits for each frontage type 7 Table 7-3, Required Parking clarified parking requirements for different uses 7 Section 7.04.C.1.a, Parking Reductions removed requirement for parking within the CC District over 10,000 sq. ft; maintains existing standard 7 Section 7.05.B.1.f, Landscape Areas inserted requirements as requested by MDC 8 8.03 C.1, Credits for Existing Vegetation Added requirement for a forester or arborist to verify tree survey 8 8.05.B.4, Plant Specifications clarified plant species that can be planted and those that are prohibited 8 8.06.B.3.c, Tree Preservation and Protection Applicability clarified when a tree preservation and protection plan is required 8 8.06.D.5, Protected Trees; Exceptions clarified that trees on the "Do Not Plant" list are not protected trees Page 90 of 93 8 Table 8-8, Protective Fencing required 100 percent of drip line of tree to be protected by fencing 10 Table of Contents clarified sections removed and sections added to Article 10 10 10.02, Commercial Street District added Commercial Street District to code as a legacy district 10 moved Section 10.02 Historic Designations 10.02 Historic Designations was moved to Section 2.11 10 Section 10.03, Midtown Urban Conservation District added Midtown Urban Conservation District regulations to code as a legacy district 10 moved Section 10.03, Wireless Telecommunication Facilities moved to Section 10.10 10 Section 10.04, Phelps Urban Conservation District added Phelps Urban Conservation District regulations to code as a legacy district 10 moved 10.04, Marijuana & Medical Marijuana Uses moved to Section 10.09 10 Section 10.05, Rountree Urban Conservation District added Rountree Urban Conservation District regulations to code as a legacy district 10 moved 10.05, Short-Term Rentals moved to Section 10.08 10 Section 10.06, Walnut Street East Urban Conservation District added Walnut Street East Urban Conservation District regulations to code as a legacy district 10 moved 10.06, Retail Liquor Sales moved to Section 4.06.A 10 Section 10.07, Walnut Street West Urban Conservation District added Walnut Street West Urban Conservation District regulations to code as a legacy district 10 moved Section 10.07, Chickens moved to Section 4.04.I 10 Section 10.08, Short-Term Rentals moved from Section 10.05 10 moved Section 10.08, Utilities moved to Section 4.06.B 10 Section 10.09, Marijuana & Medical Marijuana Uses moved from Section 10.04 10 Section 10.10, Wireless Telecommunication Facilities moved from Section 10.03 10 Section 10.11, Grant Avenue Parkway District added Grant Avenue Parkway District regulations as a legacy district 11 Added/modified definitions added/modified definitions for clarification and consistency Page 91 of 93 10 10.02, 10.03, 10.04, 10.05, 10.06, 10.07 Added existing Urban Conservation Districts (UCDs) into the Code for ease of use 10 10.11, 10.12, 10.13, 10.14, 10.15, 10.16 Relocated these sections elsewhere in Chapter 36 11 11.01 Added definition for "Administrative Condominium Plat" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Administrative Plat" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Administrative Plat Correction" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Alteration (Historic Structure)" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Alteration, Structural" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Archaeological Significance" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Architectural Significance" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Apartment Complex" under the heading of "Building Types (Residential)" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Caregiver" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Certificate of Appropriateness" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Certificate of Economic Hardship" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Degenerated Beyond Feasible Limits for Rehabilitation" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Demolition (Historic Structure)" 11 11.01 Deleted definition for "Driveway" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Economic Hardship" 11 11.01 Deleted definition for "Grade" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Historic Design Guideline" Page 92 of 93 11 11.01 Added definition for "Historic District" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Historic Landmark" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Historic Preservation" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Historic Significance" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Historic Site" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Interior Landmark" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Landscape Area" 11 11.01 Deleted definition for "Linear Park" 11 11.01 Deleted definition for "Manufactured Housing Subdivision" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Owner of Record" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Reconstruction" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Rehabilitation Impracticable" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Relocation" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Restoration" 11 11.01 Added definition for "Survey, Historic" 11 11.01 Deleted definition for "Yard" 11 Page 93 of 93