Springfield site's new owner resurrects plan for apartments, but neighbors cry foul

A plot of land in north Springfield was rezoned 18 years ago for apartments that never materialized. With the land untouched until now, a new developer is attempting to resurrect the project, to the alarm of nearby homeowners.

The property, on the north side of the 1700 block of East Valley Water Mill Road, was rezoned to a "planned development" in 2006. Planned developments are a type of rezoning that allows for greater depth of detail as far as what is to be developed on a particular piece of land.

At the time, the properties on the northeast corner of the intersection of Glenstone Avenue and East Valley Water Mill Road were owned by Stephen Plymire. Plymire applied for the PD, which included plans for commercial development on the corner and a multi-family residential development at 1735 E. Valley Water Mill Road. In the middle of the two lots is a sinkhole.

While Plymire received approval for the rezoning, he did not continue on to realize his plans for development. Since the rezoning, the property has changed hands three times before reaching the current owner, Triple S Properties. According to Greene County Assessor's records, the property was sold in 2014, 2019 and more recently in April 2023.

The land has remained undeveloped, though now Triple S Properties has received the green light to move forward with their submitted Final Development Plan of the multi-family housing portion of the 18-year-old PD. The plan includes three three-story apartment building consisting of 72 units, 126 parking spaces and an outdoor pool on the side of the property that abuts single-family residential homes. A landscape buffer will be created on the east side and the apartments will be 52 feet from the residential property line.

A different initial plan

But the apartments were not always what the developer aspired for. Mike Seitz, the registered agent of Triple S Properties according to the Missouri Secretary of State database, also owns the two lots on the westside of Glenstone — the Dollar General site at 3627 N. Glenstone Ave. and the lot directly north of it.

According to city records obtained by the News-Leader through the Sunshine Law, when the developer initially submitted information to the city, apartments were planned for the property around the Dollar General. Conceptional plans instead were planning a residential subdivision at 1735 E. Valley Water Mill Rd. for single-family semi-detached housing, similar to townhouses. City documents note that because of the PD in place, the lot would have to be rezoned to allow for the townhouse use but city staff expressed support for such a development. The city documents do not show any plans for development on the commercial lot portion of the PD.

But in by the late summer, the owner decided to instead move forward with the apartment complex at 1735 E. Valley Water Mill Rd., according to emails obtained.

The developer did not respond to requests for comment.

Neighbors share shock, concern over development

Nearby neighbors said they were caught by surprise that the long-vacant land could be primed for potential development so swiftly.

Rebecca Choate, who lives in one of the homes abutting the development, purchased her home 23 years ago. For all those years, her backyard faced a grassy field full of trees. She first noticed changes when the land was being cleared and piles of brush were burned. It was not until another neighbor told her about the development plan heading for a public hearing that she found out about what was planned there.

Her main concern with the development is the encroachment on her privacy. When Choate and her husband were house hunting 23 years ago, they passed on a house they really loved because of a similar situation where a tall apartment building abutted the backyard.

"This is just deja vu," she said. "It's coming back to haunt us."

Choate is not entirely opposed to development next door but would prefer something on a smaller scale. Watermill Park Apartments, located across the street from the new development site, has already been part of the neighborhood for years.

"I just wish they could do like little townhouses or even duplexes," she said. "I wouldn't care. But not a three-story huge apartment complex in our backyard."

As construction on the property starts and the apartment buildings are erected, Choate said she and her husband, who enjoy a pool in their backyard, are considering putting in a privacy fence. For the retired pair who recently paid off their house, the future is uncertain, and a move seems less likely.

"This is our house, this is where we want to stay, you know, you work hard for it your whole life," she said. "I guess we'll just see what happens."

When the final development plan went before Springfield City Council for the first time April 8, Choate and another neighbor, Bruce Stidham, addressed the council about their concerns and a lack of information about the prospective plans. (Editor's note: Stidham is a freelance photographer whose work frequently appears in the Springfield News-Leader.)

"The residents of Stewart Avenue are not opposed to housing and the revenue it brings to our beloved city, but we believe it can be done respecting the privacy of homes that have been there for over 45 years and to be done in an ecologically-responsible manner in harmony with nature and for the betterment of our community and future generations it will inhabit," Stidham said in his comments at the April council meeting.

Stidham argued the development process has been rushed, with the developer clearing land and no notification provided to neighbors. While council and city staff acknowledged his concerns, because the property was already rezoned, there was not much that could be done to stop or change the plans. The main role council played was to ensure the final plan conformed with the PD. City code does not require a neighborhood meeting in this instance, though a notification of the city's public hearing was posted on the property.

Stidham's concerns about land clearing were legitimate, however, with the city finding that the developer failed to obtain a land disturbance permit for clearing more than an acre of land in late fall or early winter. While the city issued a Notice of Violation and required the developer to stabilize the remainder of the land that had not seen vegetation regrowth, Environmental Services Director Errin Kemper noted in a memo to City Council that the developer applying for the permit would not have ultimately changed the outcome of the clearance or the development at large.

With city leaders' hands tied to change or stop the development, Councilman Craig Hosmer in particular expressed his concern with the 18-year lull between rezoning and any actual steps to follow through with the approved plan. The current Forward SGF comprehensive plan also outlines a "step down" approach to different density levels in housing, which Hosmer said the development fails to address.

Implications for future planned developments

Hosmer asked staff to look into whether other municipalities have different guidelines when it comes to PDs and a possible deadline that could be added to the city's current PD process. Currently, PDs last forever just as any other zoning. The process was changed after the approval in 2006 and now requires site plans to be submitted as part of the rezoning process, something that the Valley Water Mill Road development did not include until the final development plan was submitted this year.

"I'd like us to look at that, because it does seem like 18 years ago what we thought was a good development or what the neighborhood thought was a good development may be completely different today," Hosmer said.

More: Developer withdraws University Heights rezoning application, pursues planned development

Director of Planning & Development Steve Childers said Springfield has a lot of planned developments, meaning many of them are likely old. In his opinion, a hard timeline may not be the most realistic, but other options exist to make the process better for all, though it would be up to council to make the ultimate decision.

"A project takes a lot of steps to get through, just because you get a picture approved doesn't mean you're ready to go the next day," he said. Childers mentioned that a more plausible option would be a timeline for when a PD would have to be reviewed to ensure it complies with the adopted comprehensive plan. In this case, when the rezoning was approved the city was following the previous Vision 20/20 comprehensive plan.

With the city being in middle of a development code overhaul, Childers said any of the concerns surrounding PDs could be addressed through that. The goal of the changes is to allow for more flexibility, consistency and balance the needs and wants of developers to those with nearby residents through setting standards.

Marta Mieze covers local government at the News-Leader. Have feedback, tips or story ideas? Contact her at mmieze@news-leader.com.

This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Developer plans apartments on Springfield site rezoned 18 years ago