Staff Report
Scott Godbey presented the staff report for the request. Mr. Godbey stated that the owners of lot 52 and 53 of Eagle Park Subdivision desire to replat these two lots into one lot to be able to better maintain the common area/drainage easement located in lot 52 and use it as common area for future development of lot 53.
Lot 52 was dedicated to the Eagle Park Subdivision as a common area but was recently purchased by Bryan Properties. It is a non-buildable lot. It is a utility, drainage, and access lot. Bryan properties wishes to remove the property line between the lots. The current lot 52 is zoned R-1 single family and lot 53 is R-3 if the lots are combined the zoning will not change. It will increase the density of the current lot to allow 4 additional units to be built for a total of 192 dwelling units.
Staff recommends approval.
Public Hearing
Jarad Davis, Anderson Engineering 3213 SW Bypass Springfield MO. Applicants’ representative. Clear the air, not planning on rezoning. There isn’t any good access to additional area. Thought to put a dog park or something like it.
Randall Bettis, lives on lot 15 Eagle Park, pond at the rear of property and when it rains it is a very fast flowing river, If that goes away there would be a major issue. Mr. Davis, that would not go away, they would work with staff to ensure that it will stay the same. Not sure if would be a dog park at this time but would make it better.
Tariq Lewis asked what type of building they would want to build. Mr. Davis stated that it would be an apartment building, would not be low income. Bryan properties plan on high end apartments.
Mr. Bettis asked when Bryan Properties acquired the lot. Mr Davis said that they were in negotiations, and it was dependent on this meeting, Mr. Bettis asked about entrances because the current round about is very unsafe. A lot of concern about safety. Numerous accidents. Mr. Davis that would be something that would be planned with discussion with City Staff and a traffic study.
Debbie Larson, 602 Eagle Park Cr, lot 14. There is a river that runs behind, concerned that if something changed the water would encroach on her property. Mrs. Larson asked if there would be something built on that lot. Mr. Godbey stated that it was an unbuildable lot.
Max Whitlock, 611 Eagle Park Cir, here to discuss the lot combination of 52 and 53 correct? Loren Winter stated that yes that was it. The only advantage is adding 4 units is that correct? Feels that this is not enough value to combine the lots. Would like for the city to do a traffic study.
Derek Slagle, 1144 W Sleep Hollow Dr. Every year the water floods yard, has a river that flows. By these apartments being built by the pond the runoff will have to go somewhere. How can we be certain that it won’t create more flooding? Increased crime rate with apartments. Don’t want an apartment where they worry about people living in apartments.
Scott Godbey, the detention pond was designed to handle the water in the area. The rate going in will increase but the rate going out will be the same, meaning the water will be in the pond area a bit longer.
Loren Winter once again, stated that if there was someone who needed to speak, to please approach the council, state their name and address.
Jerry Caywood, 601 N Gregg Rd. Can you build a dog park or walking trails with what it is zoned now? Or does it need to get changed the same as lot 53? MR. Godbey stated that there was a trail easement on that lot currently. Mr. Caywood stated that his lot backed up to the area, he is against the lot and doesn’t want the apartments. Does not want a dog park behind his house. Lot 53 was supposed to be 55 and older, with garages not for apartments.
Brad Williamson, 609 Eagle Park Cir, against the proposal because there would be too much runoff. Goes to the last street. Adding that many units with concrete parking lots is a bad idea. Don’t want apartments in the area. Traffic is bad with the small round-a-bout.
Jason Finky, 1169 Sleepy Hollow, wanted to know when he could speak against the apartments going in. Mr. Godbey stated that it was already zoned for apartments. Mr. Finky, how is it zoned for apartments and not senior housing? Mr. Godbey stated that the zoning would allow for either of those. Does not want more water runoff.
Diane Brown, 1202 Denali Dr, asked her realtor before purchasing her house, what would be done with this property. Was told that Mr. Stenger would develop this as a senior housing community. Intersection is very scary intersection, many wrecks. Traffic is terrible. Does not the lot combination.
Paul Coy, 618 N Eagle Park Cir, bought his home because it was quiet. Were told at the time by the developers that it would be for senior housing. Didn’t buy his home to look at apartments. The street is not big enough, and the round-a-bout is terrible.
Kim Whitlock, 111 Eagle Park, opposed to combining the lots, needs to stay that way. No to the dog park. Not for the apartments.
Mike Quick, 1159 Sleepy Hollow, Water retention is terrible and its not right to build apartments.
Reynold Brown, 1202 Denali, can’t hear very well but wanted to let the commission know that it is a quiet environment and wants it to stay that way. If they build apartments, it will change that environment and with the round-a-bout its would be too much traffic.
Jeremy Patterson, 614 Eagle Park Cir, just a word of opposition to the proposed lot combination.
Kim Luttrull, 695 N Gregg Rd, asked if this didn’t pass would Bryan Properties go away? Mr. Winter stated that the Commission couldn’t answer that question as it is a private matter between them. Will lot 52 just sit with nothing on it? Mr. Winter stated that he couldn’t say for sure what this lot would become, there are several things that can happen on a lot that is not buildable. Dog parks, walking trails and things of that nature. As such, the owner of any lot or property can determine what will happen with the property within the law. Even if a realtor tells you at the time there are no plans, that can and most often will change, depending on what the owner of that property decides to do. If it’s within the allowable uses of the property, the Commission could not dictate what the owner can do with their property. Ms. Luttrull asked why they could add 4 units. Is it because they are combining the lots? Mr. Winter stated that yes that is where that comes from.
Max Whitlock, this will allow 4 more units in one building is that correct? So not adding 4 more buildings? Mr. Godbey stated that yes, just dwelling units and not buildings. Mr. Whitlock asked the Commission to not approve.
Paul Coy, asked who owns lot 52? Mr. Godbey stated that he understood that Bryan Properties has it under contract. Mr. Coy stated that the same thing happened in Springfield, and he is apposed to this project.
Jerry Caywood stated that he had pictures of the flooding if the Commissioners would like to see them.
Mike Quick, stated that the flooding is washing the street away and will get worse with apartments.
Jarad Davis, clarify a few things. No planning at this point. Dog park was just a suggestion. Not requesting new zoning. The existing streets and round-a-bout was designed with this neighborhood in mind. But will be doing a traffic study. Lot 52 and lot 53 are currently owned by Housing Plus and not Mr. Stenger.
Randall Bettis asked if the multi-family zoning allowed for both apartments and duplexes means the same thing correct. Mr. Godbey stated that duplexes would under a different zoning.
Tariq asked Mr. Davis is the water run off had only been looked at for lot 52. Mr. Davis stated that they pulled the design files for the whole subdivision.
Mr. Winter addressed the audience and let them know that once the public hearing was closed, then they could no longer speak and respect the process. The Commission was trying to make the best decisions.
