The proposal, which split Planning and Zoning last month, would rezone a tract of properties on the corner of Sunshine and National from single family to Office-2 (O2) while also establishing a conditional overlay district (COD – a kind of zoning-modifier) to rule out uses like entertainment, tattoo parlors or vape shops.
The owners of the tract, Be Kind and Merciful (BK&M), bought the properties in 2022 hoping to develop a retail plaza. But when backlash from the University Heights Neighborhood Association repeatedly prevented those hopes from coming to fruition, they settled on rezoning and trying to sell to another developer. This has not proven very easy for them either.
At the top of Monday’s city council meeting, Mayor Jeff Schrag motioned to suspend the rules and move the ordinance regarding the rezoning to the top of the agenda. It turns out that the developers had requested to have the plan remanded back to Planning and Zoning in order to make further changes to the zoning designation that would allow for the construction of a possible hotel, and if the bill was getting remanded, the people there to speak about it might as well go home.
After clarifying the mechanics of remanding the ordinance, the motion to remand failed 4-2-2, with McGull, Hardinger, Lee and Schrag voting in favor, Hosmer and Adib-Yazdi voting against and Jenson and Horton abstaining. That being the case, the hearing went forward.
Representatives of BK&M were the first to speak. BK&M, they said, was pursuing an O2 zoning designation (which would allow a hotel) before learning at the P&Z hearing of the upcoming citywide remapping. That remapping would combine the O1 and O2 designations into a new “CMX1” designation (which, crucially would not allow a hotel), hence the request to remand their plans back to P&Z in order to add an exception to the COD, which would allow a hotel.
“I didn’t write a speech, I didn’t think I was going to have to write a speech tonight,” said Ralph Duda of BK&M. He alleged that the city “pressured” BK&M to pursue an O2 designation for the property, before being blindsided by the remapping news.
“So,” he continued, “I’m frustrated we’re here. It’s been three and a half years, and we can’t have a chance to go back before planning and zoning to get this right.”
“My company is being treated differently,” Duda alleged, “and I don’t know why. Actually, I do know why: It’s because the property values of University Heights are much higher than the property values in other areas that you’re rezoning in this city.”
A number of University Heights residents and representatives of the neighborhood association spoke as well. Many of the recurring issues came up over the course of the discussion: Traffic and safety impacts at an already busy intersection, the character of the neighborhood and preservation of single-family housing. The throughline through all of the speeches, however, was the problem of uncertainty.
“It’s easy for some to summarily disregard our objections by labeling us NIMBY obstructionists,” said Ashton Lewis, treasurer of the neighborhood association. “Please put yourself in our position: Would you support rezoning in your neighborhood without an acceptable plan and an actual developer?”
Neighborhood association representatives, instead, advocated for “place-specific” solutions, treating each of the eight properties in the tract as distinct.
City Council will vote on the rezoning ordinance at their October 20 meeting.