City attorney: Council limited in approval process for proposed subdivision 

A proposed subdivision near the intersection of Battlefield Road and Lone Pine Avenue has drawn concern from neighbors, but members of Springfield City Council were advised by the city attorney to look narrowly at a measure to approve a preliminary plat. 

At its meeting Monday, discussion of a council bill regarding the proposed Chimney Rock development in Galloway Village – with applicant JCRS Development LLC – was preceded by remarks from City Attorney Jordan Paul, who told council that their role was merely administrative. 

“When you enacted the general subdivision regulations, you were wearing your legislative hat,” Paul said. “Those are the overarching rules, like what lot size is going to be, what setbacks are going to be – in other words, you’re kind of constructing the goal post whenever you create your overarching subdivision ordinance.” 

When applying rules to a property, council is wearing its administrative hat, and its role in reviewing a plat is to administer those rules, he said. 

“For example, the question is whether the plat meets the lot size requirements, not whether the requirement is good or bad, adequate or inadequate at this point,” Paul said. “In other words, you don’t move the goal post at this point.” 

He said some may suggest that council should do more than the minimum, which he called a good sentiment. 

“In fact, the law says the opposite when it comes to plats, because it says the owner of the property – which may include a developer – must be able to look at your subdivision ordinance and know what standards apply in order for a plat to be approved,” he said. “Unlike a zoning, the review of a subdivision plat is a relatively black-and-white technical analysis.” 

Paul cited case law from the Missouri Supreme Court, in which Furlong Cos. Inc. successfully sued the city of Kansas City. The court held that the city council did not have the authority to refuse to approve a subdivision plat that complied with the subdivision ordinance, and damages were awarded to the developer. 

“There are many other cases in this vein, and I’m not aware of any other cases that have come out the other way,” he said. 

Councilmember Craig Hosmer was skeptical. 

“I’ve been on council 12 years, and I’ve never seen a memo come out and say that we have to – and again, I’m not critical of your assessment of the law, but it does seem odd that it’s coming to council and the only vote council can make is a yes vote,” he said. “I guess I sort of blow up when people tell me I have to vote one way or the other. That doesn’t seem right to me.” 

Hosmer made a motion to postpone consideration of the measure so council members could have more time to study it. The move would have pushed the public hearing to Feb. 10 and the council vote to Feb. 24. That motion failed by a 5-4 vote, meaning council will vote at the Feb. 10 meeting. Those council members voting against the motion to delay were Brandon Jenson, Monica Horton, Abe McGull, Callie Carroll and Derek Lee. 

Prior to last night’s council meeting, the city’s Planning & Zoning Commission voted Dec. 19 to reject the plat, according to past reporting. 

Members of P&Z cited residents’ concerns about stormwater, quality of place and smaller lot sizes than the others in the area. They also cited a need for a traffic study. In correspondence with P&Z, neighbors also brought up concerns about street width and whether they could accommodate increased traffic and fire trucks. 

The subdivision would portion 8.7 acres into 40 lots. Councilmember Jenson yesterday noted that if the proposed subdivision were to be developed at the same density as the adjacent Chimney Hills subdivision, only 35 homes would be included.  

At the Monday council meeting, a public comment session followed the vote on the motion, and it included 14 people representing the development company and the neighborhood. 

Own Inc. engineer Jared Davis, the company’s land development division leader, indicated past councils determined the land use particulars. 

“This zoning was decided, I think, 1995 with the overall citywide rezoning effort,” said Davis, representing the developer. 

Zoning is the first thing that is looked at, Davis said. 

“We checked every box. We met with city staff – oh, I don’t know, six or seven times on this one before we brought it to plat,” he said. “We hit all the checkmarks as part of the city checklist.” 

Some of those boxes that were checked were lot size, setbacks, density and subdivision regulations like street widths. 

“If you meet all of those requirements, it should never get here. You guys should just be accepting the streets at that point, and P&Z should have taken the steps to accept this plat,” he said. “You guys have never seen this before because it never happens.” 

Hosmer, a lawyer by trade, described the staff recommendations – such as there being no need for a traffic study and that water detention requirements are met – as conclusory, a word defined by Merriam-Webster as meaning the statement is presented as a conclusion without offering supporting evidence. 

He also expressed the concern that the city relies on the developer’s own engineers to determine whether those standards are met. 

“The neighbors haven’t had a chance to have a competent expert to say the reverse of that,” he said. “It seems like both sides should be treated equally. They should have the same ability to have someone bring up information to say this does not meet [the requirements].” 

Ricky Haase, vice president of Olsson Inc., told council that developers need certainty in the process, particularly when they have worked with the city to obtain all approvals. 

“It’s important to uphold those processes and ensure fairness and predictability for everyone involved,” said Haase, who also spoke on behalf of the developer. 

The Galloway Village neighborhood has organized in the past to object to development efforts, ultimately taking to the ballot box in 2022 to ask city residents to vote on whether to allow a mixed-use housing project by Elevation Enterprises LLC. Some 71% of city voters said no to the development. 

“We had a legal opinion on the previous Galloway issue that said we should do X; we did X, – we got beaten with X in court, and we got beat by 70% of the people that voted,” Hosmer said. “That was bad legal advice.” 

He noted, though, that he has a great deal of respect for Paul’s legal opinions. 

“Sometimes we get pushed into making decisions that I think are faster but not well thought out,” he said. “This is something that I think is important enough that we need to get it right and not just get it done quickly.”