Neighbors voice concerns as council revisits east Springfield development 

A proposal to rezone 48 acres for a 510-unit planned development had its first reading at last night’s Springfield City Council meeting. 

The development is proposed for the area at the eastern limit of the city, 3830 E. Division St., by East Division Development LLC. Behind it are Springfield-based Napredak Builders LLC with funding by the California-based private equity firm Canyon View Capital Inc., according to the staff report and public hearing testimony. 

The property, recently annexed into the city, currently sports a Greene County zoning designation as an agriculture district. 

The city’s Planning & Zoning Commission recommended denial of the application on its first review on July 17, sending the issue to City Council for an Aug. 11 public hearing. Council remanded the issue back to P&Z, which switched its position, recommending approved by a vote of 5-3 on Sept 25. One change in the proposal was to limit apartment buildings – and there are 10 of them – to a height of three stories. 

The layout, put together by architectural firm H Design Group LLC, shows single-family housing and villas along the east and south perimeters, with townhomes and duplexes just inside the single-family house locations, also on the east and south. Most of the interior is composed of the 10 three-story apartment buildings, with amenities like pickleball courts, a pool and walking trails. 

Thirty-one speakers stepped forward to offer their views on the development. Many who were opposed – mostly residents of nearby neighborhoods – voiced concerns about traffic, density, topography – including sinkholes – and neighborhood character. A handful of neighbors expressed support for the plan. 

Attorney Bryan Fisher of Neale & Newman LLP, who said he represents approximately 400 residents in Cooper Estates, recommended council deny the rezoning request. 

“Johnnie Cochran famously quipped at a trial that if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit, and I would propose to council that if it doesn’t comply, it shouldn’t fly tonight,” he said. “The issue here is that the planned development simply does not comply with the Forward SGF program that this city spent four years developing and adopting as its comprehensive plan.” 

Fisher said the property is designated as a traditional neighborhood type, which the comprehensive plan defines as a place type predominantly composed of single-family detached residences. 

“You need to only look at a cursory view of what’s being proposed here to see what we have is an apartment complex with a few single-family residences thrown around the edge,” he said. “That is not a traditional neighborhood place type; it does not comply with the comprehensive plan.” 

He also said the comprehensive plan allows for low-intensity multifamily housing in a traditional neighborhood place type – not 10 three-story apartment buildings. 

Finally, he said, the comprehensive plan stipulates that in a traditional neighborhood, low-intensity multifamily housing should be located on the exterior of a development at major intersections. 

“This neighborhood does not propose to do that,” Fisher said. "It puts the 10 apartment buildings in the middle of the development – not at its exterior, not at major intersections that bisect it, but in the heart of the development, because again this is not a traditional residential neighborhood place type; this is a place type designed to be an apartment complex with a few single-family residences thrown in.” 

The proposal is reduced by 20 units, or roughly 5%, from its original version that council remanded to P&Z. 

The development would be built in three phases over a period of six to 10 years, according to representatives of Olsson Inc., consulting engineers for the project. 

Ben Shantz, a partner at Spencer Fane LLP, told council there is no compelling rationale to override work that he and many other members of the community and council contributed to the comprehensive plan only three years ago. 

The plan envisions the land east of U.S. Highway 65 as predominantly single-family housing, Shantz said. 

“There’s been a little bit of hay-talking about, well, ‘predominantly’ gives us some wiggle-room. We cannot allow the exception to swallow the rule here,” Shantz said. 

He added, “This is the first significant development of rezoning that this council or Planning and Zoning has seen of the east-of-65 area designated for single-family traditional neighborhood. If the very first one that comes up is voted to essentially provide 90% of non-single-family traditional housing, what message do we send?” 

Speaking in favor of the development was Megan Creson, an attorney with Lowther Johnson Attorneys at Law LLC and the president-elect of the Springfield Apartment and Housing Association. 

Creson said the development will deliver over 510 much-needed housing units with easy highway access and close proximity to employers, meaning it would provide workforce housing. 

She said Canyon View has been in the community since 2007 with developments like Golden Pond Apartments and Kensington Park Apartments, and it has several large local investors – it is not California money, as claimed, she said. 

She said Napredak Builders will make design and construction decisions and will handle long-term maintenance and property management for the project. 

“This project is a good fit, and it will provide much-needed housing and good-quality housing to our community,” she said. 

A council vote is scheduled for Nov. 3.