Crestwood Board of Aldermen Meeting – October 9, 2024

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).