The Crestwood Board of Aldermen met on October 9, 2024, to address a conditional use permit, public concerns about new parking restrictions, staff reports, and a detailed discussion on the design of the new community center. The board approved the consent agenda, passed the CUP ordinance, and gathered input on community center finishes without taking formal votes. Consent Calendar - Approval of September 24, 2024 Board of Aldermen Regular Meeting Minutes – Approved unanimously. - Acknowledgement of Special Districts FY25 budgets for Watson Plaza CID, Crestwood Point CID, Crestwood Square CID, and Crestwood Crossing Residential CID – Approved. - Resolution calling for an April 8, 2025 election to elect four Aldermen – Approved. - Resolution selecting and approving extension of Simmons Bank as depository bank for the City of Crestwood – Approved. - Resolution providing an extension of certain deadlines for the developer to submit certificates of substantial completion in connection with the Crestwood Plaza TIF redevelopment plan and project – Approved. All consent items were passed by an 8–0 roll-call vote without discussion. Public Comments & Testimony - Tracy Pfeiffer (1725 Exilarama Court) expressed frustration over newly posted “no parking” signs in her subdivision, arguing that the restrictions prevent guests and families from parking, especially in the cul-de-sac. Mayor noted the signs follow fire code and offered to provide details after consulting the fire chief. - Mac Murphy (9308 Vandervoort Court) questioned the necessity of restricting parking in the cul-de-sac, stating that even with parked cars a fire truck could maneuver, and offered to help turn vehicles for emergency access. - Jason Lowe (9309 Vandervoort Court) asked why the restrictions were only now being enforced and why no prior notification was given. The city administrator explained that the developer (McBride) still owned the streets during construction and that no parking zones were approved by ordinance at a public meeting, but no individual notice was required. - Steve Huddy (9300 Vandervoort Court) echoed concerns about lack of notification and added that police have been ticketing residents, causing confusion. He requested the city provide clear information to residents. Discussion Items Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit CUP-8-24 for Life Storage LP - The public hearing was opened for a CUP to allow an on-site residential unit as an accessory use at 9900 Big Bend Boulevard (M1 Light Industrial District). City planner Danny Jindusa testified that the unit had existed since the facility was approved in 2013 but was discovered missing during a recent occupancy inspection. The applicant, Tyler Merkel, described the request as “housekeeping” to legalize the existing unit. - The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval with conditions, and the board concurred. The ordinance was passed on first and second readings by an 8–0 roll-call vote. The city attorney was directed to prepare findings of fact. Community Center Design Discussion - Alderman Maybe led a presentation covering several design refinement topics. No formal votes were taken; staff was asked to forward feedback to the design team. - Mechanical enclosure screening: Suggested adding evergreen trees to screen the mechanical area from the playground. Several aldermen supported the idea, noting evergreens shed less debris. - Exterior cladding: Recommended adding stone or different metal accents to the mechanical enclosure and gym wall to improve aesthetics, similar to other community centers. Concern about light reflection on the south side was noted. - Pedestrian desire paths: Discussed whether an additional sidewalk or stairs might be needed to prevent people from cutting across grass. Staff advised waiting to see where paths naturally form before adding walkways. - Flagpole: Alderman Maybe proposed installing a flagpole with bench seating. Several aldermen supported including a prominent flagpole at the new center. - Building signage: Suggested adding illuminated signage on the building and a monument sign at the entrance. Many aldermen favored larger, more visible signage. - Roof material: Questioned the choice of TPO roof versus a metal roof system (e.g., Pac-Clad) for longevity and appearance. The design team was asked to provide cost and performance comparisons. - Lobby front desk materials: Advocated for durable materials (e.g., granite or quartz) for the reception counter, given heavy use. - Lobby base molding: Recommended using a taller base (e.g., double-height rubber base) in the main entrance for a more polished look. - HVAC schedule: Noted that the current system schedule shows the building closed on Sundays; requested finalization of operating hours to ensure HVAC is programmed accordingly. - Alderman Zavist requested the design team explore lowering the mechanical enclosure wall from 12 feet to 8 feet to reduce visual impact. - Alderman Ballis asked for a total cost of ownership analysis for the facility, including expected replacement cycles for major components. He also inquired about using louvers instead of solid walls for the mechanical enclosure to improve airflow, and whether high-SEER HVAC equipment is specified. - Alderman Seven noted resident disappointment about the removal of racquetball courts in the planned renovation of the existing family game center, suggesting future consideration of an outdoor court. Key Outcomes - Conditional Use Permit approved (Ordinance) for Life Storage LP – 8–0 vote on first and second readings. - Consent Agenda approved (8–0) including meeting minutes, special district budgets, election resolution, bank extension, and TIF deadline extension. - Community center design feedback to be forwarded to the architect and design team; no board action taken. - Parking concerns raised by residents were acknowledged; mayor and city administrator committed to providing fire code details and reviewing the possibility of relaxing discretionary restrictions for the subdivision. - Board adjourned to closed session to discuss legal and contract matters (not open to the public).
Public Meetings - Crestwood, Missouri
Public Meetings - Crestwood, MissouriThe Crestwood Planning and Zoning Commission met on October 3, 2024, at the Aldermanic Chambers, Crestwood Government Center, 1 Detjen Drive, Crestwood, MO. (Note: The meeting agenda and transcript list the date as October 2, 2024; the meeting metadata specifies October 3, 2024, which is used here.) The commission approved the September 4, 2024 minutes, held two public hearings, considered a fence exception request, and received an informational presentation on a proposed Accent Solutions expansion. Call to Order, Roll Call, and Minutes - Meeting called to order at approximately 6:00 PM; the Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a quorum was established. - Motion to approve the September 4, 2024 minutes carried without additions, deletions, or corrections. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public spoke during the general public comment period. - Tyler Merkel of Wilson Elser Moskowitzman and Dicker LLP, representing Life Storage LP, spoke in support of CUP-8-24, stating his client purchased the property under the assumption that the 2013 city approval meant there were no zoning issues. He asked the commission to make clear that future interior plan work would not trigger an additional onerous approval process. - Susan Miller, property owner of 9538 Lodge Pole Lane, requested a fence exception, explaining she was replacing a fence on one side of her yard and wanted it to match her existing fence. - During the Accent Solutions discussion, Jason, the business owner, presented his company's expansion concept and answered commissioner questions. Public Hearing: CUP-8-24 Life Storage Accessory Residential Unit (9900 Big Bend Blvd) - Staff described the request: an approximately 1,000-square-foot, two-bedroom, two-bathroom accessory residential unit used as a 24-hour building manager's apartment within the existing self-storage facility. The facility and residential unit have been in operation since 2015. - Construction permits were issued in 2013; construction was completed in 2015; the original occupancy permit did not list the residential unit. A 2022 re-inspection led city staff to determine the unit was not permitted in the M-1 district, and accessory dwelling units were not previously allowed in any zoning district. - In 2023, the city amended its zoning code to allow on-site residential staff living quarters as an accessory use for self-storage facilities through the conditional use permit (CUP) process, subject to criteria including a single unit in the M-1 district, occupancy by an employee of the storage company, compliance with residential occupancy, building, and fire codes, and a new occupancy inspection whenever the tenant changes. - The applicant's attorney sought clarity that conditions C and E—requiring city approval of any interior plans or drawings—would not force an onerous new process for the existing approved unit. Staff and the fire marshal recommended conditioning the permit on an occupancy inspection at each change of tenancy. - The commission approved CUP-8-24 by roll call vote with conditions, including the requirement for an occupancy inspection at every change in tenancy and restriction of the unit to an employee of the self-storage facility. Public Hearing: TEXT-1-24 Text Amendment - Conditional Use Permit Procedures (Section 26-11) - Staff presented proposed amendments to Section 26-11 regarding conditional use permit procedures, developed in response to prior commission input. - Commissioners discussed the ability of the commission to add design-related stipulations to CUPs and to make recommendations to the Board of Aldermen. Commissioner Angela (Seven) stated she was comfortable with the edits and the resulting language, including the removal of a previously discussed provision. - A motion to approve the text amendment and forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Aldermen was carried by roll call vote. New Business: FENCE-4-2024 Fence Exception Request (9538 Lodge Pole Lane) - Susan Miller requested an exception to install an uncoded galvanized steel chain link fence along the west side lot line, covering approximately one-third of the boundary, in order to match an existing fence while replacing it in sections. - Staff recommended denial, finding that the request did not meet the fence exception criteria: the strict application of the fence code would not substantially impair reasonable use and enjoyment; the exception would not be in harmony with the fence code; and the exception could be injurious to surrounding property or public welfare. - Commissioners discussed whether the fence code addresses full-fence replacement versus partial repairs, noting that a section-by-section replacement could create aesthetic inconsistencies. One commissioner commented, "I don't see the exception. I think it was the right decision," while another expressed being "of two minds" because limiting repairs could force an unattractive mismatch. A commissioner suggested the code may need a definition distinguishing repair from new construction. - No motion or roll call vote on the fence exception is recorded in the transcript; the record reflects discussion and apparent support for staff's denial. Discussion: Accent Solutions Expansion Concept - Jason, representing Accent Solutions, described the company as a general warehouse and full fulfillment facility that builds e-commerce platforms for various businesses, owns two printing companies in Missouri, and has a facility in Boca Raton, Florida. - He explained the proposed addition on the west side of the building, which may be reduced in size following conversations with the fire chief to provide a fire access road, and the installation of underground stormwater chambers to comply with MSD requirements. - Commissioners commented that NOS (September events) use the church across the street for overflow parking, which is an amenity but challenging for people with strollers; one commissioner asked whether a parking arrangement could be worked out with the business. Another commissioner noted the expansion presents a different look to a historic building and said that if Rico is a public street, the city may need to consider making public improvements if the space is opened to the community. - This item was informational; no formal action was taken. Key Outcomes - Approved the September 4, 2024 meeting minutes. - Approved CUP-8-24 (Life Storage accessory residential unit) by roll call vote, conditioned on an occupancy inspection at each change of tenancy, employee occupancy, and compliance with residential and fire codes. - Approved TEXT-1-24, forwarding a recommendation of approval to the Board of Aldermen. - Fence exception FENCE-4-2024: staff recommended denial; commissioners voiced support for the denial, but no final vote is recorded in the transcript. - Accent Solutions expansion: informational discussion only; no vote was taken.