Crestwood Board of Adjustment Meeting – March 13, 2026: Variance for Lot Split at 9838 Watson Road

Note: The agenda and transcript list the meeting date as Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 7:00 PM, but the provided metadata indicates the meeting took place on March 13, 2026, 16:15 UTC. This summary uses the metadata date as instructed.

The Board of Adjustment convened to hear a single variance request (BZA-3-26) from Premier Design Group and property owner Michelle Taki for 9838 Watson Road. The applicant sought a variance from the minimum 150‑foot lot width requirement in the C‑1 local business district to split the existing 200.3‑foot‑wide lot into two lots (east lot: 85.51 ft; west lot: 114.52 ft) to facilitate development, initially a Dutch Bros coffee shop on the narrower east lot. After testimony from city staff, the applicant, and two members of the public, the board voted 4‑1 to approve the variance with no conditions, granting 180 days to commence construction.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Linda Brookmeyer (neighbor south of the property) expressed no opposition to the lot split but raised concerns about water drainage from the existing Red Lobster parking lot washing out a berm and fence. She requested assurance that the fence would be replaced at the same height and location to block headlights. The applicant’s engineer (Scott Feldt) and city planner (Danny Jendusa) confirmed that drainage would be addressed through a new storm sewer design and that the fence would be replaced per code.
• Darrell Gable (neighbor, 9548 Pine Spray Court) expressed general support for redevelopment of the Red Lobster site but questioned the lack of a traffic study for the specific location and the precedent that a lot split might set. He also raised a concern about noise from a drive‑thru microphone early in the morning. The applicant noted that a deed restriction would prevent a second coffee shop on the adjacent lot and that a reciprocal easement would maintain shared access.

Discussion Items

• City Planner Danny Jendusa testified that the property is 1.75 acres with a vacant restaurant building (built 1974) and has two existing curb cuts. The proposed lot split would require a variance for both resulting lots because they are narrower than the 150‑foot minimum. He confirmed that the split would be consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and that other C‑1 lots in Crestwood exist with widths under 150 feet. He could not explain the original rationale for the 150‑foot standard but noted that an alderman had recently inquired about studying a reduction.
• Applicant’s engineer Scott Feldt explained that the split would not create new curb cuts—both existing driveways would be retained and connected by a cross‑access easement. He cited traffic studies from other Dutch Bros locations indicating maximum queue lengths of 12–18 vehicles, which the proposed stacking lane (estimated to hold 30+ vehicles) could accommodate without backing onto Watson Road.
• Property owner Michelle Taki stated that she intends to develop and keep both lots but acknowledged that a national tenant might require its own parcel. She confirmed a deed restriction preventing a second coffee shop on the west lot and a reciprocal easement ensuring shared access in perpetuity.
• Board members discussed the applicability of the variance criteria, particularly whether the request was based solely on financial return and whether traffic congestion was a concern. Member Michael Barrett emphasized that consideration #4 (substantially increasing congestion) warranted careful thought, while others noted that Watson Road had historically handled heavier traffic (e.g., a busy Red Lobster) and that future site‑plan review and a conditional‑use permit process for a drive‑thru would provide additional scrutiny. City Attorney Lindy Fritz reminded the board that the focus is on the zoning variance, not the specific business.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on variance criteria (5 factors):
  1. Exceptional narrowness/shallowness or unique shape – Denied (1‑4: Liddy aye, others nay).
  2. Conditions unique to the property – Denied (0‑5).
  3. Conditions not created by applicant – Denied (1‑4: Liddy aye).
  4. Literal enforcement would deprive rights commonly enjoyed – Approved (3‑2: Rubis, Liddy, Barrett aye; Hubbard nay).
  5. Variance will not confer special privilege – Approved (4‑1: Hubbard nay).
• Final motion to grant variance with no conditions – Approved 4‑1 (Rubis aye, Liddy aye, Barrett aye, Hubbard aye; no opposition recorded).
• Variance duration – 180 days to commence construction (the applicant indicated they may request an extension).