advertisement

Bethel-Nifong rezoning request worries nearby residents

Monday, August 29, 2011 | 6:05 p.m. CDT; updated 12:17 p.m. CDT, Monday, October 3, 2011
A sign in a vacant field near the corner of Nifong Boulevard and Bethel Road advertises impending development. A plan by developer Jeff Smith to rezone the field for commercial use is causing controversy among nearby residents who fear flooding of Mill Creek and increased traffic at the intersection.

COLUMBIA — A rezoning proposal for land at the southeast corner of Bethel Street and Nifong Boulevard has sparked a 148-signature petition from neighbors who oppose the plan, but city officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission believe it's a good idea.

The proposal, which asks that the City Council rezone the 22.5 acres to accommodate plans for senior housing and a mixed commercial development, was filed by Jeffery E. Smith Investment Co. The property now is zoned for multi-family residential and office use. The rezoning request is scheduled for a public hearing and a vote by the council on the Sept. 6.

MoreStory


Related Media

Related Articles

The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1 in favor of the request after a public hearing on Aug. 4. Although scores of Bedford Walk neighborhood residents signed the petition, none spoke at the hearing.

“I think part of that was a miscommunication,” Anita Bruzzese said, explaining that some of her neighbors were expected to attend but didn't.

Bruzzese and her husband, Len Bruzzese, wrote an email to Fifth Ward Councilwoman Helen Anthony in May explaining some of their concerns with potential development on the corner.  The email specifically listed stormwater runoff and traffic as concerns if the corner were developed. 

“Since we've lived here we've had problems with traffic and run-0ff,” Anita Bruzzese said. She also said that Columbia as a whole needs to be vigilant about how new development affects property values.

The proposal by Smith, who is represented by attorney Dan Simon, includes a development agreement intended to address the neighbors' concerns. The agreement calls on the developer, at his expense, to build two new public streets designed to improve traffic flow, to install a traffic signal where one of those streets will intersect with Nifong and to build a box culvert along Nifong that would further address stormwater and make it easier for the city to widen Nifong in the future. The box culvert alone would cost an estimated $1.5 million, Simon said at the Aug. 4 hearing.

The developer also would design and build stormwater detention facilities, but the city would pay for those and for sidewalks along the new streets.

Though happy with some of the progress made since the first plans for the area, Len Bruzzese isn't convinced that's enough.

“The water runoff will remain a concern until we see that it is not a concern,” he said.

Bruzzese said he also worries about traffic, especially if an anchor store moves onto the land, given that Gentry Middle School and Rock Bridge High School are both in the immediate area. 

The Bruzzeses are not the only Columbia residents who have contacted city officials about the planned development.  Melissa Cruit wrote a letter to Mayor Bob McDavid, which was received on July 1, describing problems with traffic.  Cruit noted that traffic from Gentry Middle School extends throughout the school zone, which includes areas near the corner in question.

The land in question is currently zoned as R-1, single-family residential; R-2, two-family residential; R-3, medium-density, multiple-family residential; and O-1, office. Smith wants to rezone 5.5 acres as PUD-17, which is a "planned unit development" with a density that cannot exceed 17 dwellings per acre.

He wants the other 17 acres to be zoned C-P, or planned commercial use. He has split the area targeted for commercial use into three tracts:

  • Area A, the closest to a residential area, would prohibit many uses, including package liquor stores; bars or other businesses that focus on alcohol sales (except specialty wine shops or similar businesses); restaurants with drive-thrus; convenience stores; service stations; payday loan businesses; adult establishments; lumber yards; and car washes.
  • Area B would prohibit the same businesses as area A but would specifically permit hospitals and medical or dental clinics. 
  • Area C would have the same restrictions but would permit drive-thrus; hospitals for small animals; hotels or motels; mortuaries; pet stores and grooming shops for small animals; rental services; hardware stores and home improvement stores; and outdoor sales and displays of plants and similar items by grocery stores or other retail businesses.

Current zoning would allow Smith or another owner to build more than 300 apartments on the land and would not require approval from the city. Simon said Smith had been approached by people who want to buy his property and build student apartments.

“We would submit that this is actually a request to downzone this property,” Simon said at the Aug. 4 hearing.

With the rezoning, Smith could build 93 units of multi-family housing. He has developed senior housing elsewhere in Columbia.

“Now, Mr. Smith and his companies are proud Columbia residents. They don’t come here hat in hand. They come here with their wallets and their checkbooks,” Simon said in reference to the development agreement. 

The development agreement, a city staff report, minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission's hearing on the request and other related documents are available online.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Polly Brown August 30, 2011 | 9:56 a.m.

This seems to be the norm. A developer wants to change zoning. The nearby residents see the detriments and protest..."but city officials and the Planning and Zoning Commission believe it's a good idea."
Have residents EVER successfully blocked a developers plans for commercial development? I can't recall any that didn't eventually crumble under persistent applications by the developers.

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield August 30, 2011 | 12:04 p.m.

If I lived in Bedford Walk and other nearby subdivisions, I would walk to this development instead of driving. That would reduce traffic not only in the surrounding area, but also in the parts of town that those neighborhoods currently drive to because the merchants currently aren't within walking distance.

As with the Great Hang-ups property, we need more infill so people can walk and bike instead of driving. (If you want a better bus system, you ought to be advocating density at every opportunity.) Of course, I wonder how many Sunset Lane and Old Southwest residents currently walk to D&H. When I lived over there, I walked to downtown at least once a week.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz August 30, 2011 | 12:10 p.m.

I used to work near that area and was surprised that field was never developed. It's a perfect spot for infill development instead of building on the city's extreme fringes.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor August 30, 2011 | 12:28 p.m.

The problem is the "residents nearby" are always opposed and are frequently not informed. In this particular case, the addition of the box culvert will actually help an already existing problem from runoff from the shopping centers and strip malls that already exist within yards to the east of this planned development and the school to the south. I am a nearby resident in this case (subdivision across the street to the west of Bedford Walk) and believe we need to keep what is best for the city as a whole in mind when these issues arise. There are already similar developments within yards to the east and to the north of this proposed area. I say go for it...

(Report Comment)
Cheyenne Greene August 30, 2011 | 1:44 p.m.

does anyone wonder who Jeffrey Smith is and how his wallet got to be so fat?

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley August 30, 2011 | 2:55 p.m.

This link may give you a little insight, Cheyenne:

http://bit.ly/qnycfa

Ricky B. Gurley.

RMRI, Inc.
http://www.rmriinc.com
(573) 529-0808

(Report Comment)
Cheyenne Greene August 30, 2011 | 3:27 p.m.

Thank you Ricky, glad to see I wasn't the only one thinking 'crook'. At the very least this was not what the credits were supposed to achieve... or was it.

"Smith’s company, Affordable Equity Partners, buys tax credits from his own development company or from other developers and then resells them. The marketing of the credits can be lucrative. For example, if Smith’s company buys credits from Smith’s development company at the 35-cent price in the Bethel Ridge project and sells them to a national buyer for 45 cents, Smith’s company could make $673,000 on that one deal."

(Report Comment)
Jimmy Bearfield August 30, 2011 | 3:55 p.m.

The larger local accounting firms often buy tax credits (e.g., historic preservation) and then resell them to clients.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements