Council approves revised Medical Mile apartment building plans

Last edited 11:25 a.m., May 11, 2026 [Editor's note: This article has been updated to correct the building's height; it remains four stories in the front.]

An apartment development called The Reserve at Medical Mile was given the go-ahead by Springfield City Council last night following some changes to the project’s scope by the developer.

The proposed multifamily development is on 7.6 acres bordered on the east by heavily traveled National Avenue with its commercial and medical properties, but on the west it abuts the High Meadow East neighborhood, which is composed of single-family houses.

Concerns by High Meadow East residents about the lack of transition between multifamily and single-family parcels led the developer, Bibi Oaks LLC, to propose six changes to its proposal for The Reserve at Medical Mile, chief among them a reduction in height from four stories to three for most of the length of the building's sides. The structure remains four stories where it fronts Walnut Lawn Street.

Council approved the changes to the project at a special meeting on April 27. The others are a reduction of units to 182 from 198, a shift of the building location toward National Avenue to the east, removal of an access point to the property from Maryland Avenue, facilitating neighborhood backyard access to their properties by adding 10 gates along Kings Avenue and adding trees along Walnut Lawn Street.

Neighbors submitted a successful protest petition signed by more than 30% of owners of adjoining properties, meaning council needed a supermajority, or six of nine possible votes, for passage.

The measure passed 7-2, with two council members, Brandon Jenson and Craig Hosmer, opposed.

Arlene Chriswell was among those voicing neighborhood opposition in the public hearing, which was required following a hearing on April 20 because the bill was amended.

Chriswell told council that if they voted to support the measure, they would be failing the neighborhood. She said the intent of Forward SGF, the city’s comprehensive plan, was to offer a transition from a multistory apartment building to the neighborhood’s single-family homes.

“The design and height of this building are not right for this location,” she said. “If approved as amended, you will be telling us that Forward SGF isn’t of any value and holds no meaning.”

She added that to call a special meeting to speed the approval process was disrespectful.

Abbigale Haralson joined Chriswell in criticizing the process by which the council bill was amended.

“I stand here … as a person who believes a city is only as strong as the promises it keeps,” she said.

Haralson also raised the issue of council members’ legacies and the kind of service they will reflect.

“Every vote you cast, every appointment you make and every ‘yes’ you give to a developer is a brick in the monument of the legacy you are leaving behind,” she said. “Right now, the citizens of this Queen City are looking at the monument, and we are deeply concerned with what we see.”

Haralson said the community is left questioning who the body represents.

“It is a shameful day for a city when a homeowner’s association is forced to sue their own city simply to compel their elected officials to follow their own comprehensive plan,” she said.

Haralson was referring to a lawsuit filed by the Cooper Estates Property Owners Association against the city to challenge a separate 510-unit planned development by East Division Development LLC located near the city’s eastern limit. That suit alleges that council’s approval of the development does not conform to Forward SGF and that it must do so under state law, according to past Springfield Business Journal reporting.

Haralson said Forward SGF is a promise made to the city’s residents.

“When you ignore it to accommodate developers, you aren’t just moving dirt, you are breaking a contract with the families who invested their lives and their savings into this community,” she said. “We have to ask, who does this council serve?”

Present at the meeting with the developer, architect Brian Kubik of Buxton Kubik Dodd Design Collective showed council members a slide demonstrating that the building that is proposed is substantially lower than the allowable bulk plane, and he pointed to the reduction in height and the number of units as revisions that are aimed at addressing neighbors’ concerns.

“We’re doing our best, honestly,” he said. “It was in our heart to do the right thing.”

Kubik added that he is a lifelong city resident who has been designing buildings in Springfield for 30 years.

“I’m very proud of the buildings that we designed and built in this area, and this is no different. I’ll be proud of this building when we’re done,” he said. “I think it’s a beautiful building.”

Councilmember Monica Horton voiced her support for the project, noting that the city needs more workforce housing. She noted the project is in a higher-trafficked area already, making the location ideal for it.

Jenson said his objection was based partly on the issue of transition between houses and higher-density structures.

“We still have a three-story blank wall surrounded by a donut of parking, and so I don’t see that reflection in the urban design,” he said.