The Planning Commission on Aug. 5 rejected a request to rezone a parcel adjacent to Cobblestone Subdivision to MF‑12 medium‑density multifamily, voting 4–3 against the application.

The request, presented by Brandon Rush of ESI, sought to change the site from A‑1 to MF‑12. Rush said the project aligns with the comprehensive land‑use plan and abuts existing multifamily zoning to the north and C‑2 to the west.

Why it matters: Residents who live immediately behind the property told commissioners they feared loss of privacy, increased traffic, lower water pressure and more stormwater runoff if the site developed as multifamily with parking and buildings close to rear lot lines.

Neighbors gave detailed comments about yards, buffering and an easement. Judith McCann, a homeowner in Cobblestone who said she lives at 2102 Stonebrook Street, told commissioners that “there will be no greenery … we don't know if there will be any green space there, if it will just be a lot of parking, asphalt, and 2 or 3 story dwellings.” Victoria Gammel, who said her backyard “looks directly onto this field,” said she was “very concerned” about traffic and water pressure, estimating that 48 dwellings could generate “100 plus cars” exiting onto Levine and further degrade local pressure.

Several residents raised a lot‑line and easement issue. Gammel said the 20‑foot easement is located entirely on the single‑family homeowners' side of the property line, a detail she said staff had agreed to check. Residents also complained they were not re‑notified after the item was tabled last month; planning staff explained that under the Springdale zoning ordinance a tabled case may be carried once without a new notice.

Developer response and staff comment: Angela Bordenaro, representing the seller as an agent from Fathom Realty, said the owners “should be able to have the right to [their] future of what they've invested in.” Planning staff noted MF‑12 allows about eight units per acre by right and recommended approval based on comprehensive‑plan consistency, noting multifamily design standards and later site plan review would address buffers, parking, drainage and green space.

Decision and next steps: After public comment and discussion, the commission voted 4–3 to deny rezoning application R25‑39. Planning staff told the public that an applicant has 15 days to file a written appeal to the city clerk if it believes the commission erred.

Context and limits: Commissioners and staff emphasized that a rezoning vote only changes the zoning designation; detailed design — including exact building placement, buffer landscaping, stormwater plans and fencing — would be reviewed later if the rezoning were approved. Residents asked that those future design reviews include visible, enforceable buffers and drainage commitments.

The commission preserved citizens' ability to appeal the decision to the City Council within 15 days if they seek review.