Council rejects first reading of rezoning for 252-unit Commons of Belton on former parkland

The Belton City Council failed to advance the first reading of an ordinance to rezone 8.03 acres at the southwest corner of Westover Road and Bong Avenue for the Commons of Belton, a proposed 252-unit multifamily development.

The proposal would rezone the site from PR (parks, recreation and public use) to R-3 PUD (multi-family, planned unit development) and adopt a preliminary development plan for seven three‑story buildings, 359 proposed parking spaces and amenities including a clubhouse, pool and two playgrounds. Community Development staff recommended approval; the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended denial after public comment.

Staff told council the property includes 6.87 acres owned by the city and 1.116 acres owned by Calvary University, and that the parcel had been shown as commercial on prior future land use maps until the comprehensive plan update adopted in November 2024 labeled it parks and recreation based on current use. Staff said the project is eligible for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) because it sits in Belton’s only qualified census tract, and that LIHTC applications are administered by the State of Missouri. The staff presentation described a 84/84/84 unit mix of one-, two- and three‑bedroom units and noted the developer submitted a lease restriction limiting parking to one vehicle per unit without landlord permission; staff identified the proposed reduction in parking from the code requirement (378 to 359 spaces) as the modification of greatest concern.

Members of the public and several council members pressed the developer on density, loss of parkland, parking and access to services. Cindy Creek, a resident, cited a 2023 survey respondents’ preference for preserving parkland and argued the project’s proposed 34 units per acre would be denser than comparable local developments. Attorneys and the developer’s representatives said the project is intended as workforce housing and described screening, property management and monitoring tied to LIHTC compliance; an attorney for the developer stated the LIHTC term for this application was submitted to secure a 15‑year term. The developer and project representatives also said they were discussing adding approximately 19 to 20 parking spaces (at the expense of some green space) to meet the city code standard.

Planning staff said the city’s comprehensive plan identifies the site as an underutilized property and that the proposed development would add three‑bedroom apartment units that staff said have been uncommon in recent local projects. The Planning Commission hearing on May 6 drew one speaker in support and 17 in opposition, according to staff; opposition themes included loss of green space, increased traffic and transparency about the sale and tax credit approvals.

At the council meeting a motion to postpone the first reading until the June 10 council meeting failed, and the motion on the first reading of bill 20‑25‑29 also failed; the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally for the final action. Because the first reading did not advance, the rezoning and preliminary development plan will not proceed at this meeting and must be resubmitted if the applicant or council seeks further consideration.

The council’s discussion included repeated requests for clarification about parking, traffic analyses and utility capacity; staff said a traffic analysis had been completed and that planned infrastructure improvements would accommodate the development. Staff also said if the developer does not proceed, a future developer would be bound by the PUD unless it is amended through the same process.

Council members and speakers explicitly debated tradeoffs between preserving open space and meeting documented needs for additional affordable or workforce housing; no formal decision to sell or transfer the city parcels was recorded during this session.