JUNE 24-30, 2024 38 · SBJ.NET NEWS stewards in the process,” he said. Judge’s analysis Ankrom’s written decision offered a detailed analysis of four deed-specific restrictive covenants that, according to the plaintiff group, prohibited commercial development. The restrictions ban construction of any structure other than a private residence, limit construction materials that can be used, outline setback requirements and prohibit use of a garagette – defined as an apartment in or over a garage – as a living space. In his ruling, Ankrom demonstrates that the plaintiffs themselves have violated at least one of the covenants, with some living on lots that have been subdivided to include more than a single, private residence or containing sheds or other outbuildings, and some having alternate construction materials than the covenant-required brick, stone or stucco, such as vinyl siding. Ankrom names each of the defendants and points out the restriction that is bypassed. As examples, plaintiff Barbara Susan Robinson’s home at 1010 E. University St. straddles two of the neighborhood’s originally platted lots, and due to the lot-splitting, three residences are constructed across both of the original lots, and plaintiffs Doug and Erinn Johnson’s home at 1020 E. University St. is partially constructed with siding. Ankrom also found that some plaintiffs – Doug and Erinn Johnson, Anna Squires, Steve Waddell and Mark Wealand – lacked standing to bring the case because they do not own the property where they reside, but instead those properties are owned by revocable living trusts. Ankrom also wrote that enforcing a covenant that stipulates only a private residence may be built would hurt BK&M. “That covenant has not been complied with for decades within University Heights, due to no conduct on the part of BK&M, and the original purposes for its imposition, which appears to have included the creation of large ‘estate lots’ containing a single private residence to maintain a non-urban environment and prevent density of population, have been lost,” the ruling states. “Further, credible evidence establishes that enforcement of the restriction permitting erection of ‘nothing … except a private residence’ would work undue hardship on BK&M, and would be of no substantial benefit to the plaintiffs.” One restriction was ruled to be enforceable for some of the BK&M lots, and that was the restriction against garagettes being used as abodes. Ankrom offered a number of other reasons for his ruling, including the following: • The original plat did not spell out deed restrictions, and the deeds for lots sold within the development were inconsistent, with some citing all of the restrictions and others citing some or none. • Citing case law, including Dierberg v. Wills, he quotes, “The law does not favor restrictive covenants, and thus they will be strictly construed in favor of free use of the land.” • A 1930 foreclosure and sheriff’s sale of 41 of the neighborhood’s original lots negates any covenants. Ankrom cites Gray v. Shephard, which states, “A foreclosure sale passes title to the purchases as of the date of the deed of trust and extinguishes the inferior encumbrances made by the grantor subsequent to that date.” • The judge wrote that the defendants presented credible evidence that the BK&M lots are no longer suitable for a single private residence and added, “Enforcement would make the land virtually unmarketable, undevelopable and unsafe.” Additionally, he wrote that the plaintiffs presented credible evidence that tall structures are needed on the property to avoid sound and light pollution from nearby thoroughfares and the large hospital complex on the intersection. “Leaving the BK&M lots undeveloped would be detrimental to the neighbors and the neighborhood,” he wrote. SBJ reached out to attorneys for all parties, including plaintiffs’ attorney Bryan Wade and defendants’ attorney Bryan Fisher. Fisher provided a brief written statement in an email, which said, “We are pleased with the court’s well-reasoned opinion. Judge Ankrom’s judgment evidences the court’s thorough and thoughtful consideration of the legal issues and the evidence presented at trial.” In a phone call, Wade said that he would be meeting with his clients and would not have a statement in time for this story. It is not yet known whether the plaintiffs plan to appeal. Mark Fletcher, who with his wife Courtney Fletcher is named as an intervener in the suit, responded by email to say that the pair did not have a comment. Previous opposition The city’s Planning & Zoning Commission voted twice not to recommend proposals by the developer for the site. In December 2023, P&Z voted 5-1 against rezoning the site from single-family residential to general retail when presented with the plan for a food hall with indoor and outdoor pickleball courts. Commission members cited traffic concerns and neighborhood integrity in their opposition. Following the P&Z ruling, the developer had sought Springfield City Council approval to rezone the site from single-family residential to general retail, but the city announced via a Jan. 10 email that BK&M had withdrawn its rezoning request pending the judge’s decision. Duda told Springfield Business Journal by text after the December 2023 meeting that it was clear neighborhood residents desired the certainty that a planned development would provide. Prior to that meeting, P&Z also voted in April 2023 against rezoning the site, when BK&M was proposing a mixed-use residential and commercial building that was scaled back from a similar but larger structure. A conditional overlay was included with the request to limit some of the allowable uses of the site. Later in April, BK&M released plans for a boutique grocery store concept. The measure appeared on the Springfield City Council agenda in May 2023, as council has the ability to approve zoning changes that P&Z does not recommend, but council remanded the matter back to P&Z for further study. In January of this year, BK&M withdrew its rezoning request and signaled its intent to apply to P&Z for a planned development. • Ralph Duda: BK&M wants to be good stewards of neighborhood. Court: Decision followed opposition by Planning & Zoning Commission Continued from page 7 City plans purchase of Boonville Avenue property by SBJ Staff · sbj@sbj.net The city of Springfield is planning to purchase property on North Boonville Avenue near Commercial Street to house its workforce development services. The city’s proposal is slated to be heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission on June 20, after this story goes to press, followed by City Council for a first reading on June 24 and an anticipated second reading and vote on July 8, according to a news release. Communication surrounding the relocation of the city’s workforce operations, including its Missouri Job Center office, recently was cited by the Ozark Region Workforce Development Board in removing the city as its fiscal agent. City staff are recommending approval of a real estate contract for 1660 and 1661 N. Boonville Ave., a facility most recently used as offices for Convoy of Hope that’s just south of C-Street. The agreed-upon purchase price is $3.7 million, below a recently appraised value of $3.95 million, and city officials expect $2.6 million in improvement costs will be needed, according to the release. Current furnishings in the building also are included in the proposed purchase price. “This proposed new location is in Zone 1, which will help eliminate barriers to employment within our community by providing better access to skill attainment,” said Ericka Schmeeckle, interim director of the Springfield Department of Workforce Development, in the release. The over 50,000-square-foot North Boonville property is currently owned by Burning Tree Consulting LLC, according to Greene County assessor records. Burning Tree Consulting is organized with the Missouri secretary of state’s office by developer Titus Williams. At its April 8 meeting, City Council approved a plan by Williams, through his Commercial-Pacific Street Redevelopment Corp., to develop the historic Missouri Hotel property and 7.5 acres surrounding it on the south side of Commercial Street, according to past reporting. The development area is located a few blocks east of the Boonville building. The Boonville property purchase and improvements would be funded by $4.4 million in general fund carryover and $1.9 million in bond proceeds, according to the release. The city’s Workforce Development Department would lease the building from the city, and the property also is expected to accommodate the city’s plans to consolidate the Workforce Development and Economic Development departments. A June 6 news release from the city said the building would be located near the City Governmental Plaza. The Boonville building is located four-fifths of a mile north of the Busch Municipal Building that is the seat of city government. • The proposed purchase site is highlighted in yellow. provided by LOOPNET.COM
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy