[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[4:11] Hello.
[4:17] Hello. Good evening.
[5:19] Well, the numbers on my digital clock say it's six o'clock and from a quick glance at the attendance, it looks like we have a quorum. So I would at this time call to order the meeting of the Crescent with planning and zone in commission. And Jeff, if you would, would you give us a roll call, please?
[5:47] That's a chairman, sweetie.
[5:51] All right.
[5:51] Chairman, sweetie.
[5:53] Here.
[5:55] Commissioners of fell.
[5:58] Commissioner Mirecord.
[6:00] Here.
[6:02] Commissioner Bundering.
[6:06] Not here yet.
[6:07] We're still waiting on him.
[6:09] Commissioner Milford.
[6:12] Commissioner Wilkinson.
[6:13] Here.
[6:14] Commissioner Overture.
[6:18] I'm just a waitin' for Todd and Brandon,
[6:20] but that is five members and that is a quorum.
[6:23] We have a quorum, Aldermen Kennedy.
[6:27] I see you, John.
[6:28] We are good to go.
[6:30] Thank you.
[6:32] Prior to the approval of the minutes folks I would like to indicate that I'm going to open the public hearings for items for A and for B initially and at that point in light of the length and complexity of the room.
[6:50] rest of the public hearing. I'm going to ask that the commission continue those, those hearings,
[6:57] hearings A and B until our next scheduled meeting. So I just wanted to give you that for warning,
[7:04] and that's my plan, and if it is acceptable to a majority of the commission, that's what the plan
[7:09] will be. But before we move on to that, we have approval of the minutes from our October 6 meeting.
[7:16] If commissioners have had an opportunity to review those minutes and there are no corrections changes our
[7:22] Deletions I would entertain a motion to approve those.
[7:27] I'll make your motion's commissioner Zifl looks like Commissioner
[7:30] Myercord made the motion all second commissioners. Thank you. Thank you.
[7:35] Commissioner's myercord in Zifl. All those in favor, please indicate by saying hi.
[7:41] Hi. Hi. Anyone opposed?
[7:43] minutes are approved. As I indicated, I am now going to open the public hearings for items
[7:51] for A and B on the agenda tonight. Those are hearings for A as a modification of the maximum
[8:00] lot coverage of residential parcels and a lot for B is a modification of lot size calculation
[8:05] and residential zoning districts,
[8:08] as I indicated prior to the approval of the minute,
[8:13] in light of the importance, complexity,
[8:15] and length of the other public hearings
[8:18] that we have scheduled,
[8:20] I would recommend and accept emotions
[8:23] who continue those public hearings
[8:26] until our next scheduled meeting.
[8:31] I will make that motion, Commissioner Zipfell.
[8:33] Thank you, Commissioner Zipfell, do I have a second?
[8:35] I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner Milford. All those in favor.
[8:42] Hi. Hi. Anyone opposed?
[8:47] The public hearings A&B scheduled for tonight, October 27,
[8:52] are continue to our next scheduled meeting.
[8:56] John, do we know when that meeting is scheduled? I know it will be posted,
[8:59] but if we could get that on the record tonight, it wouldn't hurt.
[9:02] That was December 1st, Mr. Chairman.
[9:06] So, we're the record, the public hearings on items for A&B are continuing until our next scheduled meeting on December 1st, 2021.
[9:16] I'm going to ask that we open the hearings on items for C through F, although we will do them.
[9:25] I believe separately from John's presentation I would like us to open all of those hearings and light of the fact that they are interrelated.
[9:35] If there are no objections to that, I would open the public hearing.
[9:39] Those items and John ask you to introduce us to this project.
[9:47] Thank you Mr. Chairman, for members of the public who are joining and wish to have a comment on these public hearings, you will have an opportunity to do so once the topics have been introduced.
[9:57] And what's going to happen is I'm right now going to give a very brief introduction to the project.
[10:02] The developers have asked to give a little bit of a presentation on their end as well.
[10:07] And then I will follow that up with a little bit more of a technical report discussing the legalities and the zoning and all that kind of stuff that goes along with this development.
[10:16] So what we're here to discuss is a plan development for what's being called Crestwood Crossing.
[10:22] The address is one Crestwood Plaza.
[10:25] And this is the former site of Crestwood Court, original shopping mall that opened in 1957.
[10:31] Site has been vacant since the mall is demolition in 2017 and is considered blighted and dangerous.
[10:36] In the past 15 years, numerous developments have been proposed for the site.
[10:40] None of them have been completed, but the most recent proposal prior to Crestwood Crossing being withdrawn in May of 2020.
[10:45] In June of 2020, the City of Presswood issued a request for proposals for developers to give us their ideas for how they could develop the site.
[10:55] And in December of 2020, the co-applicants deeply development and McBride homes were selected to develop the site.
[11:01] So everybody is aware of what we're looking at and what we're talking about.
[11:05] This is the site here in the City of Presswood.
[11:07] This is what's in the road going east, west, tapping, going north, south.
[11:13] And we can see right now the property is done for playing development commercial, exported by industrial uses to the northeast commercial uses to the south east and west and residential uses to the northwest.
[11:28] And over here this is where Coles is appears the government appears the government center got too many money sent to what I'm doing. So here's Coles is the government center.
[11:37] here is guitar center over this way down over here we got emo's and
[11:42] savers and Starbucks and this should get everybody a good indication of the
[11:48] piece of land that we're talking about before we get into the existing site
[11:51] conditions to talk about how things look on that site right now what I'm going to
[11:55] do is stop sharing my screen and I believe representative some D3 and McBride
[12:02] are ready with their presentation?
[12:05] And John, just before they provide their presentation,
[12:08] I just like to note for the record
[12:11] that commissioners, Bundering, and Eversgard are present.
[12:16] And take it away.
[12:36] Please note that if you are going to speak
[12:39] that this is a public hearing, and please identify yourself
[12:42] or the record, whoever that might be.
[12:47] I could even, if anyone here may,
[12:51] Mr. Chairman, members
[12:53] of the Planning Commission, good evening.
[12:54] this is Drew Bextramular with D3 Commercial Real Estate and I'm going to be presenting on behalf
[13:00] of the Dearberg side of the development commercial side of the developments tonight.
[13:04] Genial Miller with McBride Holmes is going to be representing the pride receiving.
[13:09] We're actually, we have our whole team assembled here at McBride's offices, so we're all
[13:13] together this evening, but I just want to give a brief overview of Crestwood Crossing.
[13:18] We are extremely excited to be with everyone tonight.
[13:20] We've been working on this project for a long period of time and
[13:24] are really excited about getting things going here.
[13:27] The Deerberg's entity has been, we've been developing shopping centers for many, many years.
[13:34] We currently own and operate in excess of a million square feet, 100% owned by the D3
[13:40] Deerberg's entities with occupancy rates in excess of today, about 97%, and then we also
[13:48] have another 2 million feet roughly that we co-owned with capital and company.
[13:52] We have 25 grocery stores at the moment.
[13:57] We're actually going to talk on this on a little bit more detail,
[13:59] but we're opening store number 26 and Lake St. Louis
[14:02] St. Charles County actually on Tuesday.
[14:04] So we're really excited about that and are looking forward to
[14:08] hopefully being able to have an opportunity to bring
[14:10] store number 27 to Crestwood.
[14:16] Thank you, Mr. Chair, Cremitchner.
[14:18] We're very excited to be happy to present this
[14:22] fantastic project to you this evening.
[14:24] A little bit of history about McBride, we're the largest home builder in the state of Missouri.
[15:00] I'm reading our 75th anniversary this month. Very stable companies currently building in 30 neighborhoods in the St. Louis metropolitan area. And we have a substantial amount of experience creating new neighborhoods.
[15:15] Just a little bit about the site history, more recent site history. In 2013, the last tenant vacated the mall. In 2017, the structure of the mall was demolished and complete.
[15:28] And over the years, in 2012, 2015 and 2018, various plans were submitted by various developers.
[15:38] None of those plans were feasible. None of those plans came from fruition.
[15:43] So the property has sat vacant, unoccupied for the last eight years.
[15:48] And as you heard, your staff say earlier, the site is hazard and unsightly.
[15:55] So more recent history, the city issue and RFP for the site in the summer of 2020, we applied with the proposal in August of 2020 and in December of 2020, so almost going on a year.
[16:10] the both McBride and Deerberg's were selected by the city as the code that all
[16:15] of her to the site based upon the concept plan that you're seeing before you this
[16:19] evening. So what's great about the partnership between McBride and Deerberg's on this site
[16:24] is that we are both home town companies with a long history here and we both have a long history
[16:29] of making projects work and bring them to fruition. Here's some pictures of the site as it currently
[16:35] six.
[16:43] And so when Deerberg and McGrey started talking about the site, you know, I'm thinking about how we've wanted to develop this site. We had a number of different concepts in mind and things to think about.
[16:54] But here, I just want to discuss sort of the top three drivers and our clock processes we prepared the concept plan that the city has been looking at in the next before you tonight.
[17:05] We wanted to create a sense of identity, we understand that this site is integral and a very important to the city and has a long history to the city.
[17:13] It's also very visible site.
[17:15] So we wanted to create a space that press with citizens could identify with that brought the community together in several ways, both from a commercial residential but a public gathering space too.
[17:28] We wanted to offer patio restaurant areas seating, some community gathering spaces, connectivity
[17:35] between the new residential and the commercial, and connectivity to the overall community as well.
[17:40] So we could bring folks outside of this immediate project into the community to enjoy all of the
[17:46] on-site activities that we're going to offer. We also wanted to design this close into the second point,
[17:52] a connected and walkable space where the residential owners that will be in the community,
[17:56] but also for those citizens that live outside
[18:00] of this initial project.
[18:02] And we've done that and Drew is going to walk you through
[18:05] some of the features that we've been able to achieve
[18:07] with that connect connectivity and walkability
[18:12] for this site.
[18:13] And for the residential portion, well, before I talk about
[18:17] the residential, we just, here we're obviously
[18:19] wanted to offer a very first class retail and grocery store.
[18:24] And it is a phenomenal project
[18:26] that they're going to share with you this evening and give you a lot more detail about their project,
[18:31] their portion of the project. For the residential side, what we wanted to do was achieve a variety
[18:36] of product offerings for the housing work if you're and we chosen three and we believe they fit
[18:43] very nicely with what your comprehensive plan calls for, your comprehensive plan calls for that
[18:49] for to fulfill needs for aging in place, young families and starter homes. And we're offering
[18:54] three products and as we get more into the residential portion of the project a little later in
[19:00] the presentation we'll discuss how each of those products fits the needs of the comprehensive
[19:04] plan. And lastly and although it's not on the slide we did read the comprehensive plan thought about
[19:10] it and analyzed it in terms of how we prepare a plan that meets the needs of the city's comprehensive
[19:16] plan. There's a little bit of history that goes in the comprehensive plan that we've learned through
[19:21] discussions with the city in our own research.
[19:25] The previous development urban street project
[19:29] was approved by the city in 2016 for this site.
[19:34] And then just less than a year later in 2017,
[19:37] the city approved the comprehensive plan.
[19:40] So at that time, what they decided to do for this site,
[19:42] since they had a plan that was approved by urban street,
[19:44] which was a vertical mixed use development,
[19:47] the movie theater, is that they decided just to basically
[19:51] that's specific plan as part of the comprehensive plan for this site.
[19:57] So there were many reasons that plan didn't work,
[20:00] and that we're here tonight proposing more of a horizontal mixed use development.
[20:06] So to compare our plans to the precise urban street plan that was adopted in that comprehensive plan,
[20:13] yes, those are identical.
[20:15] But things, goals that we have achieved with our plan that are identified in the comprehensive plan are providing core commercial, providing housing for a variety of stages of life, including aging and place young families and starter homes.
[20:31] So we achieve many, many of the goals the comprehensive plan has for providing housing and providing more core commercial.
[20:44] All right, so I would like to take the opportunity to introduce the site in a little bit more detail.
[20:53] As you can see, the site plan in front of you here, it's about 47 acres and just for simplistic terms, the western portion of the site is where you're going to find the poor commercial and I'm going to get into the detail of each section of that core commercial here shortly.
[21:10] And then on the eastern side behind the Watson roadlots, you'll see the McBride villages and Gene's going to talk more specific about those in the presentation as well.
[21:22] So I want to talk a little bit about the signal access point, et cetera.
[21:28] And I think what I'll do is go from east to west.
[21:31] There's an existing signal here that we're going to reenergize and reutilize that's across the street from the current Aldi.
[21:39] And that will serve the out lots of long lots of road and eventually connectivity at the
[21:45] rear of the Watson road lots to allow access along those backwats.
[21:51] As you shift to the west across the street from Crestwood Commons, you'll see another signal
[21:57] and we again would like to re-energize that signal and that will be the pathway or the
[22:02] vehicular connection to both the commercial and the McBride development.
[22:07] further west on old sappington will be the primary core commercial entrance. That's also
[22:15] signalized and we have proposed also a signal where there was a former signal here that
[22:21] was taken out when the mall was closed but we like to reinstall that signal at south sappington
[22:27] and the rear access drive. That's still in play. We have submitted a traffic study to all
[22:33] agencies and that is currently the reviews from all the agencies are underway.
[22:37] We actually did just receive mode documents late yesterday, but we're still waiting
[22:42] on St. Louis County.
[22:44] So I'd like to take a moment to sort of walk you through if you drive through this, the site
[22:49] and enter through the what we'll call the shared access point and show you a little bit about
[22:54] what we're looking here.
[22:56] This is that out, a lot, five, just a long Watson road.
[22:58] This would be if you take a ride or go to the north, you would enter the residential portion of the development and if you continue straight or westward you'd enter into the core commercial area that we're looking to achieve here.
[23:14] And you're going to see a gathering space on each side gathering spaces A and B that we really think help integrate the residential piece to the commercial piece.
[23:25] And I'm going to give you a couple different views.
[23:28] This is a view looking from the residential portion into the commercial.
[23:33] This is the end of building C, which I'll talk about here in a minute.
[23:37] There is a composite decking wall that will separate that the rear drive, if you will,
[23:43] and the rear of the out, are the, excuse me, building C and the grocery store was also
[23:49] some landscape, nice architecture there as well.
[23:54] There's another view looking from the drive lane as you come through again, gathering space A on your right side, gathering space B on your left side.
[24:09] One more view.
[24:10] This is looking back towards, you can see a couple of the mid-bright homes here, looking back towards, gathering space A again, seeing the patio of what we would see as hopefully a restaurant on the end of building seed.
[24:22] to create some synergy between this gatherings phase
[24:25] and also the poor commercial there.
[24:28] We're gonna integrate patio furniture
[24:30] throughout bicycle racks.
[24:31] Here's just a quick sample of some of the benches
[24:34] that are architect CD companies
[24:36] has helped put together for us with some bike racks
[24:38] and some bench seating, et cetera.
[24:43] And then looking at gathering space B
[24:45] and the bio-retention area,
[24:48] this is the nice visual back towards the out parcel D building
[24:52] that we would like to construct
[24:53] in the parking lot in the future that would also have drive-thru capabilities as well hopefully
[24:58] for another restaurant.
[25:01] As we move towards the, we move back towards the middle of the core commercial with the,
[25:10] with the deer birds building, what we're looking to construct here is building A, which is
[25:16] approximately 13,000 feet, building C, approximately 10,000 feet, a couple of 5,000 square
[25:22] with buildings, with drive through access on buildings D and E, and then of course what
[25:27] what I apologize, but I guess I shouldn't apologize.
[25:30] When I'm most proud of is the Dearburg's grocery store that we're looking to bring here
[25:33] to to the city of Crestwood. And that's going to be about a 71, 72,000 square foot grocery store.
[25:40] Here's a quick view of what the grocery store will look like in the future.
[25:46] And if you don't mind, I really like to share a short video presentation that's actually the
[25:52] This will be the first public views of this presentation that's going to be used on Tuesday morning
[25:58] at our grand opening in Lake St. Louis. So it is certainly not the exact or identical layout of
[26:06] some of the buildings and so forth, but we'll give you a good flavor of what we would like to
[26:10] bring to the city of Crestwood. So you'll bear with me. I'd like to go through here one second.
[26:25] I apologize for the technical difficulty here.
[26:53] Are you staying that?
[26:56] We cannot. I think you might need to share the screen so that it's showing the
[26:59] weather that you need to. I think in one second. I think it's a show where I could
[27:03] go. I think it's a show where I could go.
[27:06] Be sure.
[27:16] Are with me. Sorry, these are much easier live.
[27:21] I hope for this. Everyone, see you now.
[27:43] Sorry.
[27:43] I'm
[27:47] sorry, we've been working on this project for a decade.
[27:50] Oh, it's too funny.
[27:55] Is that me?
[27:57] Yeah.
[27:57] I don't know.
[27:58] I'll go back to the end.
[28:14] You can stop.
[28:39] What are you saying?
[28:41] It's like it.
[28:49] You got to select it.
[28:50] You got to select it.
[28:51] You got to select it.
[28:52] You got to select it.
[28:52] You got
[28:58] to select it.
[29:03] You got to do it.
[29:04] You got to do it.
[29:04] You got to do it.
[29:05] Almost not open.
[29:09] Hey there.
[29:12] Hi there.
[29:13] Look at that.
[29:16] Is that it?
[29:18] No.
[29:20] No.
[29:22] I mean, the distance.
[29:34] We could put it on your computer and put the camera on your computer.
[29:38] Is that you?
[29:38] I'll have a key idea.
[29:39] Ed McBride.
[29:40] Nice.
[29:41] Yeah.
[29:41] I left my 14 year old home, Mr.
[29:44] He had this perfect last night.
[29:47] That's generally my recommendation.
[29:49] He had this perfect last night.
[29:51] It's a little bit clean, it's a little bit clean, it's a
[29:58] little bit clean.
[30:08] All right. Sorry about that, everyone.
[30:55] Is it supposed to be narrated?
[31:01] I
[31:35] don't have
[36:08] any samples from Bob's bar. All right. All right.
[36:19] We get back to the site plan.
[36:33] Okay. So I appreciate that. Sorry for a little technical difficulty.
[36:36] But we're really excited about bringing that new concept. It has a new central entrance.
[36:40] It does not have the two side entrances
[36:42] that you're accustomed to seeing it all the older deer bird.
[36:45] So a lot of new features, a lot of new,
[36:47] new sign-in to new departments.
[36:50] Bob's barn was a big hit for us down at the lake of the Ozarks.
[36:52] We feel like it's going to be a big hit here as well.
[36:55] And so just a lot of new components
[36:56] with the different butcher shop area, seafood area, et cetera.
[37:00] So we're really excited about that.
[37:02] As we move westward within the development,
[37:05] I also want to speak about another very important piece
[37:07] of this development, which is integrating additional public space
[37:11] into what we're labeling as the western outlets at the moment.
[37:15] While we don't have specific users identified
[37:18] at the moment, we're hoping with the support
[37:21] of the city over the next 30 days or so,
[37:24] we're hopeful that we can then take this to market
[37:26] and find some local restaurants
[37:29] that would like to join the development in Crestwood
[37:33] with a couple of different restaurant options here,
[37:36] along with this public gathering space that you see here in the middle.
[37:41] And I do have a couple of views as we click through here.
[37:54] So this is looking, this is looking back Eastern.
[37:57] So Watson wrote would be at the top of the page.
[38:00] But this gives you a good indication of the couple of different restaurants.
[38:03] And again, these footprints could change depending on the needs of the various restaurants.
[38:07] And then this would be the gathering space area with a water feature of some sort.
[38:11] if this is the exact configuration or size or shape,
[38:15] I'm not sure about that,
[38:16] but certainly something very similar to this in nature.
[38:21] Another view looking, aerial view looking down,
[38:25] this is again, looking towards Watson Road,
[38:27] looking into the patio areas of the buildings
[38:29] and the gathering space.
[38:32] And then one additional view that we have is more of a,
[38:38] from the grass looking towards the water feature
[38:41] and again the back patios of the of the restaurants. So we really think that there's some good
[38:45] synergy between tying these buildings, a couple of potential buildings on the north side,
[38:51] whether that ends up being one building or two. It's just going to depend on needs and the
[38:56] types of users that would come. But we are really excited about the connectivity and I'm going to show
[39:01] you that in just a second between this area and the residential and then also the rest of the core
[39:06] commercial. One other component I wanted to bring up is in the island in this center area,
[39:12] is where we would like to put our pile on sign and there is a conditional use permit requested
[39:16] for an electronic message center that we have here shown in this area. We did move that to the
[39:24] center island after a conversation with the city and with Mr. Cruz and we felt that from a distance
[39:31] and a view court or for traffic, this is the best place for it, so we're excited about this opportunity as well.
[39:38] And then going back to the overall plan, well, last things I want to touch on and then I'll send it over to Jeannie to talk about McBrides' villages, but the connectivity plan.
[39:49] I think this is important because this is, this slide is a challenge. It really is a challenge to integrate in a horizontal manner both the residential and the commercial.
[39:59] but I do believe that we work hard in the intent is to tie in pedestrian, friendly access
[40:05] and also have vehicular access that can safely reach Watson Road, safely reach saffington by
[40:13] this rear drive so that customers or residents are not transversing across the front of the store
[40:18] to just do their daily commute. So I think we've tried to do a good job of taking care of that
[40:24] but also connecting the sidewalks every in every area that we can along Watson internal to the commercial on the rear drive going back to the residential all the way through the residential and then also going over to connect to grants trail.
[40:39] I think that's another thing that that we've stepped up and said that we will certainly take on the responsibility of connecting to grants trail.
[40:47] And this is, this is a design.
[40:51] We're still working on finalizing the engineering
[40:53] and all the challenges that we're dealing with
[40:55] on the slopes.
[40:58] And this also gives you an idea of the type of bridge structure
[41:02] that we're thinking that would cross over
[41:05] and then obviously tie in on the industrial port there
[41:08] back to the current grants trail.
[41:10] So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Genie
[41:13] and she's gonna talk a little bit more in detail about the product.
[41:19] Thank you, Drew.
[41:25] So just to talk a little bit,
[41:27] before we get into the design and the products on the McBride,
[41:31] portion of the residential portion of the site,
[41:33] just to talk a little bit about how we build communities.
[41:37] What we do is where we have three different product lines
[41:40] here and we'll walk through what each of those looks like
[41:43] in a second.
[41:44] What we do is we build several displays for each product line,
[41:47] but the customers can get a good feel and look for the house in the style of how they choose.
[41:53] We also build market homes for each product line, which is a home that a customer could close on
[41:59] relatively soon. And so it's already constructed, but most of this we anticipate will be to be built
[42:05] homes, so the customer will select their lot with the sales professional and then they'll come to
[42:11] award-winning design studio, which is right out here in our chest for real campus, it's the only
[42:18] one of its kind in the state of Missouri and it's 10,000 square feet. It has all of the investment
[42:25] options that the customer can choose both from an exterior and an interior. The customer will
[42:31] each get to work with, each customer will each get to work with a design professional that can
[42:36] device them, curried options, we're constantly updating the options and investment choices that
[42:45] the customer can make, looking at trends and offering those fantastic new trends and products
[42:53] to our customers.
[42:54] So it's a wonderful customer experience when they come out here and get to see all of those
[43:00] investment options that they can make for their new home.
[43:03] So let's take a look and just talk overall about the design of the residential portion.
[43:11] As you can see we have, we're going to talk about three different villages in the residential portion.
[43:15] But what we did was from a planning perspective really puts the more dense products,
[43:20] which is a product closest to the commercial portion and we'll talk about that a second.
[43:27] And then we move into a little less dense product which is our base side products, which is more closer, it's obviously closer to Watson Road.
[43:38] And then the least dense and the larger size product toward the back of the site where we have more green space.
[43:45] So from a planning perspective, you do have that place in basic planning residential 101 where you put the more dense residential adjacent to the commercial.
[43:53] So, as we look at this site plan too, we have common area that is private to the community
[44:01] for the residential use.
[44:03] You have a private common open space front adjacent to that central access point, which we
[44:11] feel like is a great for residents who are living on the site.
[44:17] They will obviously, a tremendous amenity for them, not only for the citizens of Crescent
[44:22] but for your new citizens that will be locating here or relocating here from existing
[44:26] crestwood homes. The commercial aspects of this project are tremendous amenity for them.
[44:32] They will want to walk there. So what we decided to do was put that common ground
[44:37] and sort of a stopping point on the way on their walk to the restaurants, the outdoor seating,
[44:43] the grocery store shopping that they're going to do. So throw the ball with the kids, walk the dog
[44:48] as that sort of stopping point before you
[44:51] answer the commercial portion of the site.
[44:54] And as Drew talked about, we're connecting to that trail,
[44:57] so there will be public pedestrian access all throughout the...
[45:02] We're going to look at Village C first.
[45:07] And these are three distinct product lines. Village C, we're going to show you some pictures. We call our least emotional series. This is a very new product series for us. We built this for the first time in the hill. That project is just completing now. These are single family detached homes that can be both two and three story options for customers.
[45:28] customers going to choose both their elevation and their floor plan and we do offer two and three
[45:34] story floor plan options. In this village for the Belissimo series there are 31 home sites here for
[45:41] customers to choose and these all have a two-car detached garage. So as you can see we go back to the
[45:50] McBride village, the portion of the residential you can see that where this Belissimo series is in
[45:55] you can see this is an alley entry with a rear entry detached to car garage. So it has more
[46:03] of that urban feel like I said we built it in the hill and you can see that wonderful street
[46:09] scape at the bottom where you have architecture that's different but very harmonious with its neighbor.
[46:16] So you have that very urban feel here especially with that detached garage. You're going to
[46:22] So, you know, the market here is for young professionals, young families, maybe people that
[46:27] want to downsize and have that rare entry product there.
[46:32] So, very exciting.
[46:33] This will be our second time building this product and we're very, very excited to be
[46:37] bringing it to your city.
[46:40] So, we move into the next product, which is Village V. This is our base side product.
[46:45] So, this product is closer to Watson, but more toward the east of the site, so we're moving
[46:51] away from the commercial now.
[46:53] And this product, when our base type product,
[46:55] these are 34 lots for customers to own.
[46:59] These are also single-family defects.
[47:02] And this offers, we offer a variety of products,
[47:06] styles of phones here.
[47:07] And I'm going to show you some pictures
[47:08] of these base type products.
[47:10] Again, all single-family detached tones,
[47:13] all have two car garage, all will have basements.
[47:17] These are a variety of plants.
[47:18] So we offer a ranch plan,
[47:19] we offer two story plans in this series. What's great about that and helping to meet some of the
[47:24] goals that the city has in the comprehensive plan if these ranch plans, they offer options
[47:29] for people that want to age in place. So what you could do here is or someone that wants to
[47:35] downsize and stay in the community. You drive in the garage, you can unload your groceries right
[47:40] into the kitchen, your bedroom, your grandchildren's bedroom when they want to visit or your children's
[47:45] bedroom is all in the same floor, the same living space. So it eliminates those stairs,
[47:52] people want to age in place and provide living space all on that same floor for them.
[47:58] And so we offer a variety of ranch plans in this product line and again plus some two-story
[48:03] options in this product line.
[48:08] So if we go to the final product line,
[48:14] It is the village A, which is in the back of a site surrounded by more green space and buffer area to the residential, obviously toward the back of the site, the existing residential.
[48:30] These are, we call our Oakwood series, and I'll show you some pictures in a second, but you can see that with the Oakwood series we're offering 16 separate home sites for customers to choose from.
[48:42] And these are move up products.
[48:45] We'll show you some pictures here now.
[48:48] So these are a little bit larger home than the baseline homes.
[48:52] These will be, these offerings will include two
[48:54] and three car garage offerings on these lots.
[48:58] And these, this product line includes the ranch plan.
[49:03] That's different than the baseline plan.
[49:04] It's a little bigger.
[49:05] Also includes two story plans.
[49:07] But it also includes a story and a half plan.
[49:09] with you can see over here just above the word Oakland homes. That's our Pinot Plan.
[49:14] What that plan and the ranch plan again offer are options to age in place, options for folks
[49:19] that don't want to do the stairs a whole lot that Pinot is very popular playing in many of our
[49:24] communities because it has the owners' tweets on the same floor as all the living space,
[49:29] your kitchen, all of these plans and the Oakland series and the Bayside series and in the
[49:39] I like it and you have a lot of entertaining entertainment space for when you have one
[49:44] have family and friends over very modern floor plans focused on that entertainment and gathering
[49:48] space on that first floor that living space. But again, what's great about this is it offers
[49:54] those living that aging in place options with those ranch plans and those one and half story plans.
[50:00] So you really do see when you look at the types of housing that we're offering is we're offering
[50:05] for different cycles in people's lives, young professionals, folks that want to downsize,
[50:12] folks that want to move up products, but may not once the full two stories, so we offer that one
[50:17] and a half a range action.
[50:28] So to get to the summary of what the request is tonight, the chair
[50:31] perfectly exemplified that there are of course a lot of components to this approval for this project
[50:36] tonight. And I'm sure this during the staff presentation next, she's going to get into some of the
[50:42] details of each of those components.
[50:45] But overall, what we're asking for is a rezoning to a PVMXD,
[50:50] mixed use development, and the development plan
[50:53] approval for the joint development
[50:55] between McBride and Deerworks.
[50:57] Just a little bit of history about what we've done in the last 16,
[51:01] 17 months since we've been working on this project.
[51:04] Like I said, we were selected as the code developers
[51:06] and by the city in December.
[51:09] But before that time and after that time,
[51:11] we have had many, many meetings with your staff.
[51:16] We've got a work session with you all,
[51:20] just several weeks ago.
[51:22] We've also met with elected officials in citizens.
[51:24] And just received a lot of comment feedback.
[51:27] And all of that has led, and of course, your staff as well,
[51:30] has led to very productive discussions
[51:32] and tweaks to the plan changes to the plan updates to the plan.
[51:35] And we want to thank everybody for their participation.
[51:37] It's made definitely the plan of better plan.
[51:40] and we're very excited, both Dearberg's and McBride are very, very excited to be able to bring this to you this evening.
[51:48] Both again, hometown developers that have been in business in the St. Louis, Montreal's area for a very long time.
[51:56] So we're just excited to be able to do this in our hometown.
[52:00] And with that, we'd be able to answer any questions.
[52:03] We have a whole team of folks here that can.
[52:07] Oh, sorry about that guys.
[52:09] I'm going to continue my presentation if that's okay with you Mr. Chairman.
[52:15] It is. I just want to let the public know. Again, thank you Drew and Jeannie for that presentation.
[52:23] But I want John to carry on and give a little more detail presentation to the commission.
[52:31] At that point, I will open up the questioning to the public. So I would just ask folks to be patient
[52:38] As indicated and as we've seen this is a complex project and I'd like for John to have an opportunity to speak and then we'll open the floor.
[52:49] Thank you for your patience and yeah, please go forward, John.
[52:54] Here you are, this is where we left off with our zoning and aerial context for the development.
[53:02] Moving on here.
[53:04] We can take a look at the existing conditions I'm going to bring these up again. This show is the eastern current ingress on the site
[53:11] You notice in the developer's presentation they talked about a track of light being reactivated at this location as of right now
[53:17] That wasn't included in my staff report because that's going to be part of phase three. Once that area along Watson will get set to be redeveloped that area includes
[53:25] This portion over here. This is if you stand behind the bank building and the northeast outside of the southeast corner of the property
[53:32] and look out over, you can see there's lots of grubble in debris, and this is about as close as I want to get, because this looks like at least a twisted end of the waiting to happen.
[53:41] You can see at the bank building there's been some broken glass, there's been some boarding up of the building.
[53:48] And looking out onto lots of road, you can see it's right across the street from the current Aldi and the shopping center development over there.
[53:56] This gives an idea as far as what things look like right along the perimeter of the property.
[54:00] We can see some end barriers that have been put into place to separate the pavement from the level.
[54:07] Going down to the next part of the city music building, this is one of the ones that's part of the development.
[54:12] And this is what it looks like on the front.
[54:14] You can see there's been a lot of deferred maintenance on the parking lot.
[54:18] And around back to deferred maintenance is even more severe.
[54:21] Some of the stuff that's off to the side of the picture that we can't see the parking lot is in very rough shape to the point where
[54:27] they're getting us to become people driving over it. There is a band in furniture,
[54:32] bad care, miscellaneous trash, and debris, which seemed to be everywhere except the dumpster.
[54:37] Going a little bit further west, this is the vacant lot that's on the other side of the
[54:43] Audi Kirkwood Grads that's shown right here. As at this time that property is not part of the
[54:47] development, although I do understand the developers are working on acquiring that.
[54:51] And here we see the perimeter of fencing, something like this exists all the way around the site.
[54:58] If it doesn't have those cement barriers, either some chainling fence like this or some of that orange nylon fencing or something to that effect.
[55:07] And a lot of warding signs telling people that it is dangerous and they should not be going in there.
[55:12] Other looks inside of the development. This gives a good example of the level that was locked in the demolition in 2017.
[55:20] a lot with a lot of this need of Prairie Graster was planted to help prevent soil erosion and
[55:26] desertification on the site. So it's got kind of an interesting pastoral look for it right now.
[55:31] We would of course decide very safe. Here we can see the ingress and egress to the site here.
[55:39] And it's the mill one along Watson Road across the court side across the street in the background.
[55:44] you can see water, you can see schnucks, and you can see this is taken at about 8.15 in the
[55:51] morning, so kids on their way to school have a really great view of the site from the top view
[55:55] of the school bus right here. Down in the middle of the right, you can see a lot more than either
[56:00] plantings and furry grass and just overall a very unfriendly looking, blighted site. Once we get
[56:07] towards the western portion of the development, this is the western most ingress and you go
[56:12] coming off of sapping to the road, as Drew mentioned the idea is a traffic signal was going to be
[56:18] erected here as well as an extension of the median along right here to prevent people from
[56:25] turning left on the south sapping to the road. This is what it currently looks like if you're looking
[56:30] eastbound from that same location through the fence and at the bottom two pictures show what
[56:35] it looks like kind of around this retaining wall here where people were turning north on the sapping
[56:41] Tim from Watson. This is what time the other side of all that. So as you can see, in some ways, it looks like it hasn't been touched by anybody for a long time. The reality is that we know that it's a very unsafe place. And it's certainly a lot more friendly than it looks. So what we have here is a proposed development called Crestwood crossing as the developers mentioned in the presentation. It's going to be a horizontal mixed use development consisting of grocery retail dining and single family homes that are sold at market rate.
[57:09] It's going to encompass the entire site, which is around 47 acres every take.
[57:14] Additional amenities are going to include pedestrian and bike infrastructure,
[57:17] infrastructure, numerous public spaces, including a public plaza, and a bridge to connect
[57:22] the eastern portion of the development to Grands Trail. Together there's more than 100,000
[57:27] square feet of reachale space that have been part of the plan submitted, and that number is only
[57:31] for the buildings that are on the site plan have been planned out. So that includes buildings A, B, C, D,
[57:38] E, which is the main duber Xeria, everything that we talked about for outlock number five,
[57:44] the outlock, some on lots and about in the area where the prize is. That stuff hasn't been
[57:48] planned yet. We don't know what the square foot is going to be for that yet. So we know the 100,000
[57:52] square foot number is certainly going to go up as tenants are identified and those portions of
[57:57] the development get figured out. This request also includes a request to change the zoning
[58:02] across the development from PDC to PDMXD, which is planned development mixed use. There's also
[58:08] We'll apply that application approval request to split it from one parcel into two and then the final plan will have all the different parcels for the single family homes in the additional outlasts.
[58:19] And conditional use permits related to the construction of the electronic message center shopping center sign.
[58:25] And a single family homes within PDMXD also require a conditional use permit as well. And of these are all items that will be considered by the commission later on this evening.
[58:35] Here we take a look at the proposed site plane, we've all seen this by now, and what we have is the main commercial area that is part of phase one right here, all of the residential portion on the east side over here, and we can see the biggest things that really stick out are the green spaces, the common space along the northeast portion of the development over here, the gathering spaces, the one for the residential down here, the two for the public.
[59:04] over here. And then we have these detention basins, which are going to help to manage the stone water run off on the site.
[59:13] And we'll get into a little bit later just about how that plays into the lot-sized and a lot coverage and all that kind of stuff.
[59:20] Here is the rendering that we saw earlier of the proposed deer birds during the daytime.
[59:26] Here's what it's going to look at at night. This one gives a little bit of a better view of what they're envisioning for a smoker right out from here.
[59:35] Moving on to the residential side of it, this is going to be 81 single family home is built on three different lock sizes.
[59:42] All having setbacks and lock coverage, it's greater than what the municipal cover allows the residential zoning districts are one through our five.
[59:49] And this is really the purpose of any plane development, be a PDR or PDMXD to allow for greater flexibility than what the zoning district allows for.
[59:58] And what we see in home.
[1:00:00] The stormwater on the residential portion of the development and work with the natural features of the site, the grading to make sure that everything is flowing down into the basins and not flooding anybody's yard.
[1:00:11] And as I mentioned earlier, these homes are built to order from a catalog of housing and to help maintain the diversity they've stated that they don't allow to the same home to be built next to each other and there's going to be an encouraged diversity of building materials and proximity as well.
[1:00:25] so we're not gonna end up in a situation
[1:00:27] where we say roll of asses that all look exactly the same.
[1:00:34] This is what the villages look like up close.
[1:00:36] We have the A-locks, the B-locks and the C-locks.
[1:00:39] The A-locks have the 50 foot set back.
[1:00:42] The B-locks have this, I'm sorry, yeah,
[1:00:45] 50 foot, a lot width, the B-locks have the 60 foot,
[1:00:48] lot width.
[1:00:48] You can see there a little bit wider
[1:00:50] and then the C-locks are only 30 feet.
[1:00:53] And when we take a look at it, we can see there are three,
[1:00:57] very distinct villages within this development,
[1:01:00] very distinct lock sizes and sizes of the buildings.
[1:01:04] As you take a look at this,
[1:01:05] I want everyone to be mindful of the fact
[1:01:07] that because these homes are all built to order,
[1:01:10] the actual square footage is going to vary a little bit.
[1:01:12] And what we have on here is showing the square footage
[1:01:14] on the lock size, not necessarily the square footage
[1:01:17] of either impervious cover or of the principle building itself.
[1:01:22] And what we take to look at what these are going to look like,
[1:01:24] Type A is going to have 34 homes with a 50 foot width, 20 foot set back on the front, 15
[1:01:31] foot set back on the rear and all three lots are going to have 5 foot set backs on either side.
[1:01:37] All of these for the lock size, the home foot print and the impervious cover are all
[1:01:41] approximations that will depend exactly on what it is that the home buyer decides to purchase.
[1:01:47] So we're looking at around 40% for the foot print of the home of the include all impervious
[1:01:52] cover, it's around 50% we've ever taken depending on how we're looking probably up to 55 or 60 with the C-Lots.
[1:02:01] Type B, that bill is going to have 16 different homes, that's got the 60 from our whip.
[1:02:07] Once that bag is still 20 feet for these, rear and side set bags are 15 and 5 feet.
[1:02:14] And put a 24 feet and pervious cover close to 51% is like 44% and 51%.
[1:02:21] Take C will have 31 homes, 30 foot width, 10 foot set back on the front, some very, very short
[1:02:27] front yards. There's set back of only five feet. Same as the side and a lot size that's a lot
[1:02:33] smaller. It's around half of what you get on the B-lots, even with that we see that the
[1:02:40] impervious cover is a little bit higher than everybody else, which is what you would expect
[1:02:43] with the lot size being what it is. This gives a little bit more of an example of what will be
[1:02:49] with the McBride homes. This is the base side series Ashford and you can tell there are different
[1:02:55] options for people to choose from for their exterior building materials and different names of
[1:03:00] what they have branded their product line. So there's classic fairy American colonial traditional
[1:03:06] French colonial and Renaissance. You can see there's a mixture of building materials between the
[1:03:11] vinyl siding and the brick as well as different types of brick, different types of entryways
[1:03:18] And even though the bones of the house and the interior construction is pretty similar and over on the right we get an idea as far as what these floor plans look like.
[1:03:28] We can change and customize the appearance a little bit so that everything feels just different enough but still cohesive and part of the same development.
[1:03:36] This is the Royal Two Product from McBride.
[1:03:39] It comes in country colonial, provincial, colonial, and Renaissance, similar kind of concept
[1:03:45] here where the facades are changing, some of the architectural features on the front are
[1:03:48] changing, but the four plans are going to be the same throughout.
[1:03:54] And these are all, pretty much exactly what you would expect from large garage, large living
[1:03:58] room, family room, there might be some additional amenities, as far as multiple bedrooms
[1:04:04] mess or bedroom size, things like that. But it's just pretty much what you would expect out of a
[1:04:09] a modern single family home today. Similar thing here with the Sterling product line,
[1:04:15] this one comes in a craftsman and traditional model that kind of blended the vinyl and brick
[1:04:20] a little bit of a different way and similar, similar sorts of stuff here. Same thing with Berwick,
[1:04:27] classic craftsman to her country too. So I think everyone gets the idea of what we're looking at
[1:04:32] that the products are going to be very similar, but they will not be exactly the same
[1:04:36] when we won't have a neighborhood that's entirely the same house, just put into place
[1:04:40] one after another. These are the proposed gathering spaces, and as was mentioned before,
[1:04:47] every thing that is over here, and this common space here, these are all intended for use for
[1:04:54] the residents of the development, and the gathering space, the gathering space, and the proposed
[1:05:01] one over here are all ones that are intended for public use and public gathering time and areas.
[1:05:09] The one over on the left is being written into the redevelopment agreement. That's something
[1:05:14] that is not going to be part of what we're voting on tonight. This is a development agreement
[1:05:18] that worked out between the developers and the board of all room in and it has to do with the
[1:05:22] tip financing and the sit and all the other of our casting districts that will help to fund this
[1:05:27] development. And part of what that looks like is a commitment from the developers to build a
[1:05:34] plaza space of no fewer than 12,000 square feet. So even though that's not part of the
[1:05:39] site plan right now, we feel confident that that's going to happen once the of our tenant or
[1:05:43] tenants have been identified. My understanding is that if they have a single restaurant tenant,
[1:05:49] they will build one building and then build the plaza to complement the one building. If there
[1:05:54] two tenants they may have two buildings and then the plausible circle for those as well.
[1:05:59] In addition to that we have the two gathering spaces over here on the eastern end of the
[1:06:04] commercial with the commercial side hits the residential side and this one is in similar size
[1:06:11] to what's going to be over here and we're looking at 12,000 square feet. This one's around 67,000 square
[1:06:18] feet and it does other public places for people to be over gather. This shows us what the
[1:06:24] sidewalks are going to look like. You can see there's strong connectivity of sidewalks throughout the development.
[1:06:30] And that leads from the western end over to the western ingress, and we dress over here in near Saffington.
[1:06:37] And sidewalks are added all throughout a lot of these areas right now do that half sidewalks.
[1:06:43] And that extends all the way over to the eastern portion where this bridge to grains turn out will be constructed.
[1:06:50] And that's also going to be constructed as part of the first phase of the development as well.
[1:06:54] So that amenity will be ready to go.
[1:06:56] Once things are up and running,
[1:07:03] this is the phase in the plane.
[1:07:05] You all have heard me for the last couple of minutes.
[1:07:06] Talk about phase one, two, three, etc.
[1:07:09] And what we have here is we can see that the principal building,
[1:07:14] A, B and C, the deer birds and the restaurants and other retail uses are going to be alongside
[1:07:18] a part of phase one, as is the connecting bridge to grains trail up here.
[1:07:23] And label is one A are the single family homes of three villages from a grite, and even though
[1:07:30] they're labeled one two and three, these all may happen concurrently, if deer birds
[1:07:35] are able to get tenants for the rest of these buildings, and get some site plants together.
[1:07:40] The reason why they're labeled this way is because this is what we know 100% per share
[1:07:44] is going to be built, and what it's going to look like and what the square footage is.
[1:07:49] So we know these homes are going to be built as part of this development.
[1:07:52] we know this is going to be built as part of the development and it's going to look like this.
[1:07:56] Once everything gets figured out, for tenants over on this side near the plaza, for tenants on the
[1:08:02] north portion of this parcel, for tenants over here now, a lot of five, and then for tenants
[1:08:07] along Watson Road, we anticipate the construction is going to happen with all that relatively quickly.
[1:08:13] And because the developer has chosen not to pursue a new tip district,
[1:08:17] they're operating with a tip district that already exists and was putting a place a couple of
[1:08:21] years ago. So because of that, we capture a period for that tax revenue is substantially less.
[1:08:28] I think on the most bullish side, it's going to be 75% of what it could potentially be
[1:08:33] if the new one was implemented. So there's a lot of financial incentive on the developers
[1:08:37] part to get the rest of this build out. And we know the durability has been doing this for a long
[1:08:43] time in the same low-ess area. They have a lot of strong partnerships with a lot of different
[1:08:47] retailers and restaurants. And from the cities perspective, we feel very confident that they
[1:08:51] be able to make that work, partially because nobody wants a development that's half built out
[1:08:56] or are commercials on the subdivision or anything like that. The other part is that we're
[1:09:01] well aware that they have a lot of strong financial reasons to want to do so. So even though
[1:09:07] later on there will be plans that will come before the commission that talk about exactly how this
[1:09:11] is going to be planned out, this will be planned out and for all the lots along the lots and
[1:09:16] the road as well to be considered and have site plans that are approved, even though they're not
[1:09:20] of the development site plan today, the part of later phases that we feel like those phases
[1:09:25] are going to happen relatively quickly and we'll be here having another conversation as far
[1:09:29] as what those look like.
[1:09:33] So that is the presentation on my end for Crestwood Crossing.
[1:09:38] It is, I found that it meets two or more of the required objectives for a plan development
[1:09:42] outlined under section 2610C in the municipal code. I found that this development is both consistent
[1:09:49] that ended consistent with the comprehensive plan
[1:09:51] and that it is consistent with the purpose
[1:09:54] of PDMXD, plan development miss mixed use,
[1:09:57] provided that a conditional use permanent granted
[1:09:59] to construct a single family home
[1:10:01] so as to require a conditional use permit and PDMXD.
[1:10:05] I found that the proposed use will have
[1:10:06] little to no negative impact on the neighborhood character
[1:10:10] and that it does meet the burden of proof
[1:10:11] to receive approval online under section 2612G.
[1:10:15] So I'm recommending approval of this application
[1:10:18] for applying development and major site plan with the condition of the landscape plan
[1:10:22] be signed and sealed by Missouri landscape architect final prior to the consideration
[1:10:26] of the final development plan. Right now I can't remember if it's either signed and sealed
[1:10:31] by the engineering firm or it's not sealed at all, but they only do that before the final
[1:10:35] development plan comes before the commission approval and that will need to happen within nine
[1:10:40] months of the preliminary development plan being approved. So what the commission has as far
[1:10:48] As there are options regarding this application is they can recommend approval, recommend approval
[1:10:53] with modifications or recommend denial, and this is a recommendation that we'll go before the Board
[1:10:57] of all women for consideration.
[1:11:00] Our preliminary plan development must be accompanied by a report to the Board of all women.
[1:11:05] The Commission must vote on all seven plan development criteria individually, as well as voting
[1:11:09] on the approval of the development as a whole.
[1:11:12] For members of the public, this is something that the Commission has been talking about
[1:11:15] the past couple meetings about how this is going to go and this is a new procedure that will be
[1:11:20] for all plane developments in the city of Westwood moving forward. While two or more of these
[1:11:25] criteria must be met for the development to receive the recommendation of approval, the approval
[1:11:29] may still be denied if two or more of the criteria are met. And basically what that means is there are
[1:11:34] seven things that the commission is going to vote on and say, does it accomplish this?
[1:11:40] Yes or no, does it do this? Yes or no? And it has to meet two of those seven items
[1:11:45] for that even consider passing it. However, the commission could decide that it meets all seven
[1:11:50] of those criteria and they could still vote against it and list the reasons as to why.
[1:11:55] So the reasons for approval or denial shall be recorded in the minutes and stated in the report
[1:12:00] that is something that's listed in the municipal code that says if a plain development is denied,
[1:12:05] the reasons for doing so must be stated in the minutes. So I would encourage all the commissioners
[1:12:10] to be vocal on their feelings on this project, let it be known so they can be entered in
[1:12:15] minutes of the meeting and the clerk has been made aware of this and is ready to do so.
[1:12:20] So please speak slowly.
[1:12:24] So that's that's everything for me for right now. Your honor and I will
[1:12:29] let you let you take it from here. Thank you, John. Before I open this up to question
[1:12:35] from the commission, I would like to offer the public and the opportunity to speak.
[1:12:40] Folks, obviously we're here on Zoom, so if you are interested in speaking, please raise your hand.
[1:12:51] Jeff will identify the hands that are raised, I will call on you.
[1:12:56] Please identify yourself by name.
[1:13:00] Initially, I'm going to limit your comments to three minutes.
[1:13:05] If there is an opportunity for additional time, I will allow you second comments,
[1:13:09] but everyone will be allowed an opportunity to speak before someone gets their second chance.
[1:13:16] So at this point, if anyone from the public is interested in making a comment,
[1:13:21] again, please state your name and Jeff, if you can kind of keep track of who's hand goes up first,
[1:13:29] I'm leaving it to you. Yes, the first hand I see is from Greg Ruby.
[1:13:36] Mayor Robi.
[1:13:38] Yes.
[1:13:39] Please.
[1:13:39] Thank you.
[1:13:41] I would first I'd like to commend the board.
[1:13:45] The commission and the.
[1:13:48] Individuals from dear birds.
[1:13:50] As well as my pride for a very thorough and.
[1:13:54] Appropriate presentation on their part.
[1:13:56] As everyone knows this is something that the city has been.
[1:14:00] looking to achieve for quite some time.
[1:14:04] And I believe that this particular presentation
[1:14:08] outlines what it is that the city really is interested in
[1:14:12] in seeing.
[1:14:14] So I'm hoping that we'll be able to move this forward
[1:14:18] and expeditiously get the citizens of Christ
[1:14:23] with something that they've been sadly missing for a number of years.
[1:14:28] I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I encourage the commission to vote favorably for this proposal.
[1:15:00] Assembly for this proposal. Thank you, Craig. Any other comments, Jeff, when you have, if you see some,
[1:15:15] Mimi Duncan, Ms. Duncan, would you please, although I've identified you, would you please,
[1:15:22] please state your neighbor.
[1:15:23] This is Mimi Duncan and I would like to also echo the former mayor's recommendation on this and I,
[1:15:31] The presentation was great. I do have a question, though, and I don't know if this is too detailed at this time, but I would like to know on the parking lots. If you're going to have special places for hybrid cars, and if you're also going to have plugins for electric vehicles.
[1:15:54] I don't know if you can answer that or not.
[1:15:56] Yes, if you may.
[1:15:58] We did this in Lake St. Louis and our intent is to do this here as well.
[1:16:02] We have all the infrastructure when I say all the infrastructure.
[1:16:05] We have the capability to add car charging stations in certain areas that we've yet to identify
[1:16:12] on this particular development.
[1:16:14] This don't can, but we will certainly be doing that in this capacity during the development timeline
[1:16:19] And have the ability to have car charging stations at this development. Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you.
[1:16:26] Thank you, Ms. Duncan.
[1:16:29] Anybody else?
[1:16:35] I do not see any other hands of this time.
[1:16:38] Going on, going twice, going three times. Thank you, public.
[1:16:42] And you don't know how much I appreciate that.
[1:16:44] Having heard from the public, I would like to open the floor up to commissioners.
[1:16:52] Why don't we, if it's all right with you, commissioners, I would like to call on each one of you individually and then if you have additional questions after you've had an opportunity to ask your questions, we can come back around.
[1:17:06] I think under the circumstances that's a little more organized, is there anybody who's radically opposed to that?
[1:17:15] All right, hearing none.
[1:17:19] Commissioner Zippel, thoughts, comments going to Sarah?
[1:17:22] Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:17:24] I was planning to fill a buster tonight, but I think that's already been taking place.
[1:17:31] I've got a few things prepared, and I'd like to read them if that's okay.
[1:17:34] Sure, yep. We're making a record here.
[1:17:37] I want to remind everyone of the intended purpose and use of the comprehensive plan and remind everyone that 26-12F, the municipal code, that an application of a major site plan must consider several issues, including but not limited to the city's plan.
[1:17:54] I want to point out also a statement that was made before is that the comprehensive plan was not developed in conjunction with the evolution of the previous failed vertical development.
[1:18:06] It was a complete standalone effort. It began several years prior to its adoption in 2017 with several community engagement efforts. It had no bearing on the previous development plans.
[1:18:20] The opening statements on the comprehensive plan relative to its purpose and use are as follows.
[1:18:27] A comprehensive plan offers long-term guidance for community growth, real estate development,
[1:18:32] and physical improvements within the municipality.
[1:18:35] The document is reflective of the local community utilizing community outreach to identify a vision for the future,
[1:18:42] supported by key stakeholders.
[1:18:44] Based on foundational analysis, the comprehensive plan is able to identify tangible actions
[1:18:50] that can be enacted to achieve this vision.
[1:18:54] At its most basic, Crestwood's comprehensive plan is a how-to guide, assisting with land-use
[1:19:00] patterns, business growth, mobility, and accessibility, maintenance of community facilities
[1:19:05] and management of parks and recreational opportunities.
[1:19:09] Opportunities were offered throughout the planning process for residents to voice their opinions, provide feedback, and share ideas.
[1:19:17] Both in-person events and online tools were employed throughout the planning process together,
[1:19:22] invaluable public opinion, ensuring the comprehensive plan is representative of the community that it serves.
[1:19:29] The day-to-day use of the comprehensive plan will be primarily as a decision support tool for the Board of
[1:19:35] planning and zoning commission and city staff.
[1:19:38] The document does act as a guide for private investment within the community and can be utilized to review and evaluate future development.
[1:19:45] The vision established within the comp plan will provide direction, not only for the city itself,
[1:19:51] but for the numerous stakeholders who help to shape the trustwood in the future.
[1:19:55] I share all this because my basis for what I'm about to say all has bearing on the comprehensive plan.
[1:20:03] And I know that's one subset that's one part of this, but, but allow me to continue.
[1:20:08] I do think this is extremely important.
[1:20:11] Therefore, any perceived deviation from the comprehensive plan ought to be very carefully considered by this commission and by the board of alternate.
[1:20:20] We have a responsibility to guide the developments of the city in a manner that is reflective in the statements and opinions of our residents.
[1:20:28] Regarding item number one, the preliminary site plan review, in my opinion, there's been no
[1:20:33] acknowledgement of the work session discussions shown in the plans. In fact, the concept
[1:20:39] site plan with color still has a date 6-821 listed, which tells me that there's been no change
[1:20:47] to the drawings. Topics of note that we discussed include better pedestrian connectivity,
[1:20:53] developments that Front Watson wrote,
[1:20:57] primary focus on development of outdoor spaces among many other topics.
[1:21:01] These plans do not address those concerns and, in my opinion,
[1:21:05] remain unresolved.
[1:21:09] Regarding items two and three,
[1:21:12] which relate to the changes owning district and
[1:21:14] conditional use permit for a single family and plan to
[1:21:19] use development. In my opinion, it changed from planned development commercial to plan
[1:21:25] development. Development mixed use would be in keeping with the comprehensive plan. However,
[1:21:31] if approved and assuming these issues are linked, we are asked to consider a conditional
[1:21:37] use to allow only single-family residential units. The concept of plan design mixed use is to
[1:21:48] otherwise occur. Such in instance might be multifamily about commercial. So why then would we accept the change to plan development mixed use only then to create single family units.
[1:22:01] The comp plan urges the city to seek a variety of housing options, which the city currently does not have.
[1:22:08] Regarding item number four electronic message centers,
[1:22:11] I would say at this point this is the least of our problems this evening.
[1:22:15] My recommendation is denial at this point,
[1:22:20] and I want to thank everyone for listening and putting up with me at this time.
[1:22:26] Thank you, Greg. I don't know what apologies are needed.
[1:22:34] Commissioner Bundering?
[1:22:37] Yes, thank you, Mr. Tweety. And thank you, Greg. I think for a well thought out and well presented point of view, I also will make my comments based on my reading and understanding of the comprehensive plan of Crestwood and how it reflects, I think this community and the goals of the community and the long term.
[1:23:00] Which is that we're stated by the community during all the sessions where they came together to discuss and come up with this document.
[1:23:08] I think I think in the outreach summary part.
[1:23:13] I think that the plan that's been presented although I do appreciate McBride and Dearbergs for their long contribution to the same most area.
[1:23:22] And I've been in both of their products and you know, used Dearbergs for many, many years.
[1:23:28] Unfortunately, I think that this particular property being where it's located and the importance
[1:23:33] and the historical importance of it, I think it's missing a few of the marks.
[1:23:39] I don't think we're creating a central hub, which I think was a huge component of what
[1:23:43] the community wanted to develop in this area.
[1:23:47] I feel that it doesn't promote crestwoods identity.
[1:23:50] I don't think it creates a sense of place, which was another thing that was brought up.
[1:23:56] I think by many of the community outreach I think it doesn't feel pedestrian friendly in the way it's laid out yet which I think was a huge goal that was trying to be achieved by the community and I don't feel that you know although well plan strip mall really will build momentum for quest for cross wood as a community over the long term.
[1:24:22] I do appreciate all the hard work that's gone into this, and I appreciate the desire to develop this property.
[1:24:30] But at this time, I would have to agree with Commissioner Zifthel, and that I don't support what's currently being shown.
[1:24:39] Thank you, Commissioner Bunder, and Commissioner Aversgard.
[1:24:46] How's it going, everybody? I apologize if I can hear my daughter's TV show on the background.
[1:24:50] and I can, and it's too loud. Let me know and I can scoot away. You're good. You're good.
[1:24:57] All right. I'm also just, why have worked till 7pm, social be on soon?
[1:25:03] Well, I'd like that go Todd and Greg, you know, thank you to Deerberg's McBride for, you know,
[1:25:08] all their hard work up to this point.
[1:25:12] I'm in a tough spot as a young 29-year-old, you know,
[1:25:16] five or six years out of college here, you know,
[1:25:19] decently knew or remember I've been on the board
[1:25:21] for probably about four years now.
[1:25:26] I see a major problem with,
[1:25:30] we've got them all site, you know,
[1:25:32] it's been vacant as John pointed out,
[1:25:35] and, you know, for eight years,
[1:25:38] there's been 15 years of failed developments,
[1:25:41] and I drive by it every day,
[1:25:42] and I see that the vacant site, and I think, man,
[1:25:45] what the heck is going to go there, everybody goes around St. Louis, they visit Nashville, Kansas City, Austin,
[1:25:55] they visit all these hot cities, they see all these cool new bars and restaurants and mixed developments.
[1:26:02] And we're a little old crestwood here in the middle of Missouri, and it's just a tough spot to imagine the future.
[1:26:11] And so when I see deer birds and McBride, and I see the work they put into it, from my perspective, you know, while it's not perfect, and I think everybody here would say that it's not perfect.
[1:26:25] You know, some of my main concerns around, you know, the green space, the central public green space that as we put it out at the work session definitely feels like an afterthought on some level.
[1:26:39] I agree with Greg a lot and that I think I missed one meeting but there has been a little
[1:26:46] bit of a lack of, you know, push and pull back and forth from some of our comments. I'm not
[1:26:53] as a, I don't feel strongly about the need to pull it forward to Watson or demand underground
[1:26:58] parking or to, you know, make, make bright home, deerburg, make bright home or kind of merge the
[1:27:05] development together anymore. But what I see, you know, to some kind of, all this, these thoughts up is a vacant site for the last 15 years. A lot of failed developments. Nobody's gotten this far. All of my neighbors and friends that I talked to in the area, while their number one wish probably wasn't dear birds and McBride homes.
[1:27:32] I am able to separate my majestic desires and see, you know, two good companies, St. Louis-based.
[1:27:42] So, you know, Dearberg's a grocery store, the retail, the homes.
[1:27:48] At this point, I think it will be good for Crestwood.
[1:27:53] And I would personally vote yes tonight, but I sounds like I may be in the minority, and I'll end it at that.
[1:28:00] So, thank you, Commissioner's ever, ever's your, Commissioner Markord.
[1:28:08] Thank you, Chairman, so we need. I was unable to, for two work conflicts to attend,
[1:28:16] both of the work sessions. So my understanding and knowledge of what was presented at those
[1:28:25] accessions was what I received over email communications and then reviewing what were revisions
[1:28:35] or after hearing some of my fellow commissioners revisions maybe that weren't included in an
[1:28:43] updated site plan. But being a comprehensive plan or being on the commission because I am a
[1:28:51] language, comprehensive planner and make strategic plans for communities,
[1:28:59] I feel like one
[1:29:00] I was involved in the planning process as a crescent resident that what I was presented
[1:29:07] with today and in a little bit, this is the mark a little bit on the comprehensive plan.
[1:29:13] and I would, would I go commissioner, Zifo and Blundrends comments in that degree.
[1:29:22] But I, but I will also say, like commissioner, Everskirts said that that, that this is, this is a
[1:29:32] difficult site, and this is a, a, a good effort, but I, I think, I think I, I, it could be better in
[1:29:43] more of the mark of the copyhands of plan.
[1:29:49] I have probably some some questions that were
[1:29:51] probably answered or gone over during some of those other meetings.
[1:29:58] I was I was
[1:30:00] As a sort of a meeting center, as a sort of was discussed as a, as a note, as a meeting place,
[1:30:09] that we've discussed in the Caribbean's plans for the site.
[1:30:18] Yeah, I think I think I have a lot of other questions, but there may be dipping into the
[1:30:23] some minutia. I don't know if I could talk about those now or say that for another time.
[1:30:28] But I'm going to move on to Commissioner Millford or some of my other
[1:30:33] commissioners at this point.
[1:30:34] Thank you.
[1:30:36] Commissioner Millford.
[1:30:39] Well, I appreciate what everyone else is saying.
[1:30:42] I agree.
[1:30:43] You know, my concerns because I'm not a landscape architect or a architect.
[1:30:51] But I was involved with the community engagement for the comprehensive plan.
[1:30:57] And I know that the things that kept rising to the top
[1:31:00] were pedestrian connectivity, a public gathering space.
[1:31:04] I agree with you all that some of those things
[1:31:07] do miss the mark.
[1:31:08] But I also believe that perfect is the enemy of the good, too.
[1:31:13] And this is an incredibly challenging
[1:31:16] site as far as the topography goes.
[1:31:20] We've been told repeatedly that we're not close enough
[1:31:23] to an interstate, on ramp, exit ramp, et cetera.
[1:31:28] You know, nobody's lining up to develop this site, so while it's not perfect,
[1:31:39] I think that I'm prepared to give it the thumbs up because I don't want to see that empty deteriorating, you know, central part of our community for several more years.
[1:31:56] to come quite frankly.
[1:32:00] Thank you, Commissioner Melford, Commissioner Wilkinson.
[1:32:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[1:32:09] I guess I'm going to kind of echo some of the comments that we've heard previously from Commissioner
[1:32:14] Zipful, Commissioner Mayer-Core, Commissioner Bondron. I was mostly disappointed in reviewing
[1:32:23] all this material in the past week that I didn't really see any changes to the site from our
[1:32:30] from our work session and to be honest I don't feel like the comments that we shared at our
[1:32:36] work session were really considered.
[1:32:42] I think that overall the site plan is not a cohesive unified
[1:32:47] side plan. I think it's very divided very clearly. Even in the applicant's own presentation,
[1:32:55] you know, there's a referral to the Dearberg side, the McBride side. It's very obviously split.
[1:33:02] When I think mixed use, even if I think horizontal mixed use, this is not what I think of.
[1:33:08] This is two uses. It's not very mixed, it's separate. So to me, that really misses the mark.
[1:33:16] And then, again, I'll comment briefly on the comprehensive plan, you know, I strongly agree that we need to support that comprehensive plan.
[1:33:28] I know it's one element of what we're considering, but this, you know, there's a lot of time that went into that, a lot of public input that went into that.
[1:33:37] And I think this misses the mark on that aspect as well, you know, one thing that's stuck
[1:33:43] out over and over when I read through the comprehensive plan is this reference to this
[1:33:48] site as a central hub, you know, Crestwood, unfortunately, doesn't have a really good town
[1:33:55] square or traditional mainstream, you know, Watson is our main street and this has so much
[1:34:03] to be the central hub as the complaint calls it and I think it's just not there.
[1:34:13] I don't think
[1:34:14] also that this site plan really promotes Crestwood's identity. We saw a video of a Lake St. Louis
[1:34:23] development that is going to look just like this, right? So that's not Crestwood. I think there
[1:34:30] could be more that brings out our city character, aesthetically, spatially, I think that's just
[1:34:39] the unfortunately, that's a miss. I'm really impressed with the connectivity of the site
[1:34:45] plan, honestly. I love the fact that it's connecting to grants trail. To me, that's a huge
[1:34:50] many for our city, and I'm glad it's being capitalized on. I also had to compliment the applicant
[1:34:57] on the sidewalks throughout everywhere, especially on Watson that's definitely needed, and I think
[1:35:04] that's great. So they're hitting the mark on that. But there's also a lot of unknowns throughout
[1:35:10] this site plan. So all of the outlots, all of the phase two stuff. It's very hard to
[1:35:18] give an honest kind of evaluation of this overall site plan when half of it is still to be determined.
[1:35:27] And that's a challenge, that's just the reality, but we have to put up with it and understand
[1:35:33] that those certain elements of that are built into the development agreement and hopefully
[1:35:38] they can come pretty quickly, but we need to see what those are going to look like.
[1:35:43] This is one site right now, and we're only seeing part of it.
[1:35:50] The public spaces all echo the comments again. I'm some of my fellow commissioners
[1:35:56] Their their leftover spaces. They're not
[1:35:59] You know the images showed clearly that a lot of it is you know outdoor dining space and that's not all that we need as far as a gathering space as far as the public spaces
[1:36:12] I just I think there could be a lot more done. I think you know potentially if a couple of lots were removed by gathering space
[1:36:19] I forget the letters, but the one that's pretty centrally located there, you could do a lot more with that space.
[1:36:28] So to me, that's a little bit disappointing.
[1:36:33] I guess that kind of summarizes my feelings on it.
[1:36:38] Thank you, Commissioner Wilkinson.
[1:36:42] I don't want to sound pandering.
[1:36:46] I would say, I think, dear birds and McBride,
[1:36:51] Drew and Jeannie did an excellent job.
[1:36:54] I appreciate everything that they've done,
[1:36:57] the fact that they are long time, local, well-respected,
[1:37:03] corporate citizens of the area is wonderful,
[1:37:06] But to echo what others have said, I think what I feel disappointed about is that the issues that we raised in these work sessions, I don't think they were ever addressed.
[1:37:22] And I don't mind somebody telling me that my suggestions, requests, concerns are full of
[1:37:30] malarguing, and they're impossible to implement, but I feel like we weren't heard, or if
[1:37:38] we were heard, we were somewhat ignored.
[1:37:43] The idea of that Commissioner Zip fell mentioned about budding up closer to Watson Road was
[1:37:51] it's part of the comprehensive plan. It was something that we raised in one of the work sessions.
[1:37:57] I wasn't able to make the second one, but in the first one, in maybe it's impossible.
[1:38:01] but no one has told me why it wasn't addressed.
[1:38:11] I also am concerned and I apologize, I don't remember which commissioner mentioned it.
[1:38:17] But this looks like two uses and the mixture is lacking. Commissioner Zippo mentioned the notion of residential above commercial
[1:38:31] which is something that we were interested in, that having been said, this is a hole, it's dangerous, it's blighted, it's all those things that everyone has said, I just in the end think that I need someone to explain to me why we are going to
[1:39:01] in my opinion, ignore significant portions
[1:39:05] of our comprehensive plan as Greg indicated
[1:39:09] that we worked long and hard on as a stand-alone document.
[1:39:14] I need someone to explain to me why we're going to ignore it
[1:39:19] to the extent that we are.
[1:39:21] And I'm extremely appreciative of the difficult work
[1:39:27] that everyone has put in and not, again, sound pandering, but so have we, as commissioners,
[1:39:38] and we, I think, tried to listen to the public, we presented a comprehensive plan that
[1:39:47] was approved by the city after I think, you know, a lot of work that we put in and I don't
[1:39:56] know if it's appropriate. I think it is that we can check with the Parliamentarian. I would
[1:40:02] really like to table this issue and get some responses to what I think are the consistent
[1:40:12] questions of the commissioners that we think have not been answered. I'm uncomfortable rejecting
[1:40:22] this proposal without having answers to some of those questions. But at this exact moment,
[1:40:31] if I was asked to vote on this, I'm going to vote no. And I don't want to vote no.
[1:40:39] So I think that we could entertain a motion to table this. I will defer to the parliamentarian
[1:40:47] with regard to that, and comments from the staff. So before I open this issue up to the public, again,
[1:40:57] if the public wishes to speak, I would I would like to have a ruling on whether or not
[1:41:02] tabling this issue is appropriate. Obviously, I can't tabulate myself, but if it's not appropriate,
[1:41:08] I don't want to present it to the commissioners. Mr. Chairman, could I be heard for just a moment?
[1:41:13] I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This is Brian Malones.
[1:41:17] I'm sorry. I think so.
[1:41:20] Okay. I guess two things since you raised the issue of tabling and I wanted to just make a statement about
[1:41:26] since most of you mentioned the comprehensive plan tonight.
[1:41:31] I don't intend my remarks to be a response to anything that has been said previously,
[1:41:35] but just because the comprehensive plan has come up pretty consistently with all the commissioners.
[1:41:40] I wanted to make sure we all have a clear understanding of the legal purpose of the comprehensive plan.
[1:41:48] What the courts that have interpreted the statutes requiring a comprehensive plan have said is that the comprehensive plan is intended to be a guide to development rather than an instrument to control land use.
[1:42:00] It's not considered a zoning document should not be used as such.
[1:42:03] It's meant to be updated and changed as conditions and policies warrant, and that I think
[1:42:13] your role as commissioners, the focus should be on the general goals of the comprehensive
[1:42:19] plan rather than viewing the statements in the comprehensive plan as a checklist or anything
[1:42:26] sort of legalistic that must be met for every site or area discussed in the plan.
[1:42:33] You mentioned the issue of tabling the applications, I'm aware that we have, for that there are apparently some fairly hard deadlines that the developers have.
[1:42:49] My understanding is that the staff's preferences that there are our votes taken this evening is possible.
[1:42:56] So if there were to, if the commission feels they simply can't, based on the information that
[1:43:02] they have available to it, I would suggest that we perhaps give the developer an opportunity
[1:43:08] to comment.
[1:43:09] And if a later meeting has to be scheduled, I think we would need to schedule it probably next
[1:43:15] week at the latest if we can.
[1:43:20] I'm available tomorrow.
[1:43:28] So I take that as, that we do have the authority to table this, but before I would ask for a vote on that, I absolutely would offer the applicants and opportunity to address what we've said and as much of our concerns as they can.
[1:43:49] And if, if tabling this very short period of time is appropriate, I would, we would continue
[1:43:57] this hearing and we can schedule a special meeting, you know, at the earliest opportunity
[1:44:02] for a majority of us to be for for a quorum of us to be available.
[1:44:07] So with that said, Drew or Jeannie, I don't know if you want to chat with us now or not,
[1:44:15] after our comments. I meant mine with all the respect, but I'm happy to hear from you, and I'm
[1:44:25] sure all the commissioners are.
[1:44:29] If you'd like to.
[1:44:32] Chairman, Sweet, this is Brett Poem, where I'm Vice President Real Estate for these Greek
[1:44:36] Marshall Real Estate. I've been here as, I'm sorry, I'm not doing this forever. I've been here
[1:44:42] taking notes and listening and I also was at the last work session and I know some of the folks
[1:44:48] I think quite frankly, your self-included
[1:44:50] were not at our last foreccession.
[1:44:53] And certainly there can be different opinions
[1:44:54] in terms of the controlling nature versus the guiding principles
[1:44:58] of the comprehensive plan.
[1:45:00] The one thing that I do that I want to address because I think it's inaccurate, frankly, is the statement that we did not respond to certain concerns that were brought up in most recent work session.
[1:45:11] I don't believe that's accurate and specifically notions of ideas that were brought up in that work session, including but not limited to reorienting buildings along Watson Road, raising the topography of the site,
[1:45:26] dedicating more public, more of the outlots to public space,
[1:45:31] we address those had on and quite honestly.
[1:45:33] I think the last thing that I said in that work session is,
[1:45:38] those may or may not all be great ideas,
[1:45:40] but they're not economically feasible.
[1:45:43] And for our development to work,
[1:45:46] we just simply can't do that as an example,
[1:45:48] not the only reason that as an example,
[1:45:51] the math that we have behind raising this site
[1:45:54] one foot, for every foot that we would try to raise the site,
[1:45:58] which would be necessary in order to reorient buildings.
[1:46:01] You're looking at an expense between a half a million to a million dollars,
[1:46:06] and either fill and or combinations of fill and walls.
[1:46:09] And so that just adds up very, very quickly.
[1:46:12] So that's the only thing that I want to address.
[1:46:14] I don't think this evening is the time to necessarily get an argument
[1:46:19] but the notion that we didn't listen or that we didn't have feedback, I think that's an inaccurate
[1:46:26] characterization. And certainly it's, you know, the purview for you guys to do what you would like
[1:46:32] to do this evening from our perspective. And I think the city attorney mentioned it. We are on a very,
[1:46:39] very tight timeline. We've been working on this project since December of last year. We've made
[1:46:45] significant strides. I think there's quite a bit of heavy lifting yet to do. Given that timeline though,
[1:46:51] it would absolutely be art for others so there to be a vote on this project received.
[1:46:57] That's all that I have. Thank you. And I do appreciate your time consideration as well.
[1:47:01] Thank you, Brett. And the only thing that I would say to that is we've been doing a lot of work
[1:47:06] on this for a long time also. And so I understand timelines. This commission has
[1:47:12] because it extremely flexible in terms of scheduling meetings, scheduling special meetings.
[1:47:18] And we want this project to go forward.
[1:47:22] And so I recognize timelines and I recognize hard work and heavy lifting.
[1:47:29] And there's lots of people on this screen today that have done that.
[1:47:32] Any other comments from the applicant?
[1:47:38] is the commission did in table in this matter or would you like to have discussion on that issue I brought it up sort of out of whole cloth so if any of the commissioners have any thought with regard to that.
[1:47:57] I chime in real quick before we make any motion to table or vote or.
[1:48:02] spring. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, just speaking out loud, you know, maybe to Greg, to Jordan, to Todd,
[1:48:08] to you, Chairman Sweeney, like, um, I know how I internalize, you know, balancing the
[1:48:14] compound versus deer versus McBride versus what I hear for what I want and you know,
[1:48:20] you know, you guys think the compound is your number one resource for balancing how we approach
[1:48:28] the Crestwood Mall site, how do you balance the ultimate vision to 15 years of failed developments
[1:48:36] versus not the perfect site plan like Anos pointed out.
[1:48:41] It's more of an internal discussion, but I'd be curious how you guys balanced that in your
[1:48:45] head and approach these decisions, you guys are ultimately kind of articulating tonight.
[1:48:50] And I'd like to add, too, it's like, again, we have to be careful not to have tunnel vision because we are representing our words really and what our fellow community members want.
[1:49:04] And so, you know, the community members may not be as tied up and some of the same concerns that some of you all have expressed tonight, right?
[1:49:16] They might not understand, you know, I hear what all of you are saying, okay, about a mixed use and this doesn't look like a mixed use, right?
[1:49:27] It does feel separate, but, you know, if our community members feel that they can walk up there, connect into the site, get some groceries, go watch a restaurant, run errands,
[1:49:42] What other retail spaces are going to be there,
[1:49:48] they're going to be happy with it.
[1:49:51] And so I don't think we need to get tied up and not about a comprehensive plan derail
[1:49:58] a project, and then how will the rest of the community feel about that?
[1:50:04] I mean, I live here for 25 years, I remember when that was a thriving space, it was a big
[1:50:10] see of parking lot. It was a mall okay but the whole community felt different when you had a thriving
[1:50:21] thriving businesses in that location and I think having that space to hold again with people living
[1:50:29] there and people shopping there will change the whole face of our community and I I want
[1:50:36] to just not think solely about some of the things that you all have mentioned,
[1:50:43] to think about how will the rest of our citizens in Crestwood feel?
[1:50:47] I guess the only thing I would say to that, Anne, is that that's one of the reasons I
[1:50:53] said what I did is because I think that's what the rest of the citizens of Crestwood have told
[1:50:58] us in the long run-up to our comprehensive plan.
[1:51:03] And I think we had a lot of community input with regard to that.
[1:51:11] So that's definitely, you know, that I think we kind of are.
[1:51:19] I mean, I agree.
[1:51:21] It's not perfect.
[1:51:27] But it's, you know, like I said, perfect because the enemy of the good.
[1:51:33] I agree.
[1:51:36] What did you say?
[1:51:37] I agree.
[1:51:38] No, I mean, can you walk?
[1:51:42] Is it walkable?
[1:51:43] Yes.
[1:51:43] There are pedestrian walkways across the space.
[1:51:48] They say it's going to connect to Grands Trail.
[1:51:51] Now, that's a big question.
[1:51:52] That is kind of a question mark for me.
[1:51:53] You can't just slap a bridge down over that creek.
[1:51:57] So I wonder about the approaches and making that accessible.
[1:52:00] the people who use a wheelchair or walk or whatever.
[1:52:06] But I think it addresses enough of the things
[1:52:10] that the community says in once. And I believe we need thriving active space for the rest
[1:52:23] of
[1:52:33] nature of what we're talking about. And the hard work of all involved and I can understand
[1:52:39] where Commissioner Milford and Everskirt are coming from and I completely understand
[1:52:44] one as much as anybody else. I think in this community for this development to be successful
[1:52:48] in the move forward and and and and I would say that at the end of the day it's going to be
[1:52:53] elected officials who were elected by their by their ward and their citizens that are going
[1:52:58] make the ultimate decision and they've, and those elected officials have asked us to sit on this
[1:53:03] board as, you know, with certain expertise in the field to give our opinions on what we see
[1:53:10] having, you know, 20, some odd years in, you know, architecture and other things like that in development.
[1:53:16] And, and I would also say that, you know, that thriving center you spoke of across what I grew up there,
[1:53:21] right? I mean, I remember stories of when it was an open air mall. I spent a lot of time there.
[1:53:26] And it was you would park, yeah, but then you would go inside and walk around and have different experiences, very pedestrian friendly, but it was organizing them all, I get it.
[1:53:34] And I just, I guess I would suggest that although I completely understand and I agree, I do think that we can't turn our backs on the comprehensive plan because that was, I think in many ways, was a forward-looking document, was a forward-looking effort.
[1:53:51] And I'm just afraid that, you know, being an inner ring, suburb, and if you look at some
[1:53:56] of the other ones that are in the same misery around us, I just ask, you know, is this
[1:54:02] a development that you would see maybe in a community that's trying to create a sense of
[1:54:07] a central hub or or a sense of community, you know, is it really going to be something that
[1:54:13] people come to from outside of our community to bring their resources to and to engage in?
[1:54:19] I just, I worry that it's going to end up being, I mean, no offense, I think it's like I said it was well done, but just another strip mall along Watson. And I don't know if the draw really is going to be as dramatic as everyone thinks, but once again, I said, it's a very difficult decision, and, and I completely understand where I'm coming from and, and, and, you know, just, we'll see.
[1:54:47] Thank you, Commissioner Bundering, any other Commissioner comments?
[1:54:53] Chairman Sweeney, don't forget about all the rink Kennedy. He's usually not quite this long.
[1:54:57] Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see a hand. I'm sorry. Sorry. All the rink Kennedy.
[1:55:02] Thanks, Chairman Sweeney.
[1:55:03] I apologize.
[1:55:05] No, it's all good. Certainly appreciate Drew and Geneva's presentation.
[1:55:11] Jenin. John Cruiser's summary was great. I certainly respect everyone's opinion on the commission.
[1:55:20] And every time, you know, whether it's Greg or Bob or Todd or Jordan or Brandon or
[1:55:27] Jeff or Ann Speaks or Andrew, I'm like, oh, yeah, I agree with them. Yeah, the brand is right.
[1:55:34] Now, Bob's right. I mean, everyone makes great points, can't disagree with really anything that anyone said.
[1:55:45] It does feel like a couple different developments. I get it. I know it's the side of this challenging.
[1:55:53] And I kind of like the connectivity sidewalks.
[1:55:58] That's a good start.
[1:56:01] I like the bridge to Grands Trail.
[1:56:03] That's neat.
[1:56:04] I think the homes all their linear.
[1:56:08] I think there's enough variety there to be attractive
[1:56:13] to the residents and future residents of Presswood.
[1:56:16] I think that's great.
[1:56:18] Looking at the deer birds, development,
[1:56:21] who doesn't love Deerberg's great product, great developer, it is really neat having
[1:56:29] two long times in most firms, you know, being the anchors, you know, they're not, I mean,
[1:56:37] they're really the, they're an owner user. And having that bring the certainty to this development,
[1:56:45] there's no risk that this is not going to happen, which is fantastic. That was
[1:56:51] the challenge with Urban Street and with Walpers Plan, it's just you're relying on the signatures
[1:56:57] of other tenants.
[1:57:01] I think we're, I think we're close. I think there's, there's some, I think
[1:57:06] there's enough pieces here that make it really attractive. I would really like to see the town center
[1:57:13] feel, thrive, and pop, and be more of a major focus of this development.
[1:57:21] I think it could be there.
[1:57:23] You know, when we were talking amongst some friends there today, we're talking about this
[1:57:31] water feature and this 12,000 square foot plaza, and if you think about it, I mean, it could be
[1:57:36] pretty cool. I mean, if you put a lid over the fountain and had a concert have a ban on the on the lid and have surrounded by, you know, thousands of residents enjoying the public site, that could be pretty cool.
[1:57:53] It feels disconnected. I think I think it can be solved and maybe there's just another iteration
[1:58:01] of this plan that could really, really be cool as a as a town center feel. I love the idea of
[1:58:07] having a couple local restaurants surrounding the public square with outdoor seating. I think that's
[1:58:15] all, you know, I think we're close. And I'm not sure what the commission wants to do, but you know,
[1:58:21] I think maybe a homework assignment for
[1:58:24] Deerberg's and McBride would be in order,
[1:58:27] but I think they've done a pretty
[1:58:29] commendable job with this difficult site.
[1:58:32] I think we made, I do think we make great progress.
[1:58:35] And I do respect Brett's comments about the economic challenges
[1:58:42] of this site and the $500,000 to $1,000 to $1,000
[1:58:45] per foot to raise it, et cetera, it definitely is challenging.
[1:58:49] I think we all can grasp that.
[1:58:53] So I think we're close.
[1:58:56] And I would encourage the commission to maybe,
[1:59:00] you know, do we want to do that?
[1:59:01] I think it's, I think we are making progress.
[1:59:04] I think they have listened.
[1:59:06] It's not perfect, but I think it's exciting.
[1:59:10] And I think it's going to be something that the community is going to love.
[1:59:14] But maybe it's just a little more homework to do.
[1:59:18] It will be there. Thank you. Thanks, Alderman. Any other comments from the commissioners?
[1:59:27] Well, just, I just have one side note about the, um, any of the public space that
[1:59:35] that needs to be activated and programmed. So I did have a question about, you know,
[1:59:42] somebody's got to take responsibility for programming that space. Like where's the money for a band
[1:59:47] going to come where you're going to get money for a concert series, et cetera, you know,
[1:59:51] that's something that's got to be considered by the city, or, you know, maybe worked
[1:59:56] into that agreement with the plan.
[2:00:18] So I don't know if this is an appropriate time for somebody to consideration, that's all.
[2:00:30] In light of the applicant's comments, I'm not going to request a motion to table this.
[2:00:43] John, let's move forward with the vote on this.
[2:00:47] You are going to present these.
[2:00:49] I think each of the seven elements need to be presented and let's move forward with that.
[2:00:55] That's correct, Mr. Chairman, and what we will need from you right now is a motion to open the voting on the seven items required to pass a preliminary development plan.
[2:01:06] I would entertain that motion at this time.
[2:01:13] I'll second.
[2:01:15] For that where we are.
[2:01:18] You would be the primary.
[2:01:20] You would be the primary.
[2:01:22] To give you a mission-milford.
[2:01:25] I'll make that motion then.
[2:01:28] I'm sorry, who was that?
[2:01:30] I'll second for a minute.
[2:01:31] Thank you.
[2:01:33] So the motion by Commissioner Millford
[2:01:35] and Secretary by Commissioner Rivers,
[2:01:36] girders to open the voting on the seven criteria
[2:01:42] and necessary for the approval of a planned development.
[2:01:47] Jeff, in light of the import of this,
[2:01:50] would you do a roll call vote on this?
[2:01:54] Yes, absolutely.
[2:01:56] I want to move a little slow, I apologize.
[2:01:58] That's all right. All right, John, can you say that someone else? All right. So step one is the environmental design and the development of the end.
[2:02:12] I'm sorry Jeff, this is just a vote on this. Sorry, I apologize. Yeah, if you could just do a roll call on that.
[2:02:18] Yes. Chairman Swingy. Yes.
[2:02:22] Commissioner Zipfell.
[2:02:29] Grad, you may be muted.
[2:02:32] Yes.
[2:02:33] Thank you.
[2:02:35] Commissioner Wilkinson.
[2:02:36] Yes.
[2:02:38] Commissioner Milford.
[2:02:39] Yes.
[2:02:40] Commissioner Bundern.
[2:02:42] Yes.
[2:02:43] Commissioner Evergreen.
[2:02:44] Yes.
[2:02:45] Commissioner Michael.
[2:02:46] Yes.
[2:02:47] Sorry, do you have seven hours?
[2:02:49] That's seven.
[2:02:50] John.
[2:02:58] So for members of the public and anybody else attending this is the report that will be submitted to the board.
[2:03:04] of all of them regarding the votes for the planned development.
[2:03:07] As I stated earlier, there are seven criteria that must be met.
[2:03:11] Those criteria are all listed here, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.
[2:03:16] Following that, there is a space for comments.
[2:03:19] These are the official comments that will be put into the record for the report.
[2:03:23] Following that, there will be the actual vote on the plan overall, and as previously stated
[2:03:28] while it needs to meet at least two of these seven criteria that we see the vote for
[2:03:32] recommendation for approval. It could receive I for all seven of them and the recommendation
[2:03:38] still be to not approve the development plan. So at this time, while the voting has been open,
[2:03:46] now we will ask the clerk to call a roll for items one through seven in order and he's what we
[2:03:51] will call votes.
[2:03:57] Can everybody see that or would it be easier if I read them off?
[2:04:01] We can see him, but I think for the record, if you wouldn't mind reading each
[2:04:05] question. I just think it's better to make the record. Absolutely. All right. For the first one,
[2:04:10] environmental design and the development of land, that is of a higher quality than is possible
[2:04:16] under the regulations otherwise applicable to the property. Chairman Sweeney? Yes.
[2:04:24] Commissioner Zipfel? Yes.
[2:04:28] Commissioner Wilkinson? Yes. Commissioner Milford? Yes.
[2:04:33] Commissioner Bunderon? Yes. Commissioner Myercord? Yes. Commissioner Everskord? Yes.
[2:04:44] That's seven eyes. So, have a nice on the first one.
[2:04:49] On the second one, I have
[2:04:51] Deversification in the uses, permit it in variation and relationship of uses structures, open space, and height of structures,
[2:05:00] in development intended as cohesive unified projects.
[2:05:05] Chairman Sweeney.
[2:05:06] No.
[2:05:09] Commissioner Zipfoh.
[2:05:10] Oh.
[2:05:12] Commissioner Wilkinson.
[2:05:14] No.
[2:05:16] Commissioner Milford.
[2:05:18] Yes.
[2:05:20] Commissioner Bundern.
[2:05:22] No.
[2:05:23] Commissioner Myrchord.
[2:05:25] No.
[2:05:27] Commissioner Everskord.
[2:05:28] Yes.
[2:05:29] That is 5-2 in the name
[2:05:36] number 3, functional and beneficial uses of open space areas.
[2:05:45] Chairman Sweeney.
[2:05:50] Commissioner Zifo.
[2:05:52] No.
[2:05:54] Commissioner Wilkinson.
[2:05:56] No.
[2:05:58] Commissioner Milford.
[2:05:59] Yes.
[2:06:02] Commissioner Bundern.
[2:06:03] No, Commissioner Mirehord.
[2:06:10] Commissioner Mirehord.
[2:06:11] Yes.
[2:06:13] That's five-two in the name.
[2:06:21] Number four.
[2:06:22] Preservation of the natural features of a development site.
[2:06:26] Chairman Sweeney.
[2:06:28] Yes.
[2:06:31] Excuse me.
[2:06:32] Commissioner Ziftho?
[2:06:33] Yes.
[2:06:35] Commissioner Wilkinson?
[2:06:37] Yes.
[2:06:38] Commissioner Milford?
[2:06:40] Yes.
[2:06:40] Commissioner Meyer-Cord?
[2:06:45] Yes.
[2:06:45] Thank you.
[2:06:47] Commissioner Bundern?
[2:06:48] Yes.
[2:06:50] Commissioner Evergreen?
[2:06:51] Yes.
[2:06:53] That is 72 in the A.
[2:07:01] Number 5, creation of a safe and desirable living environment for residential areas,
[2:07:07] characterized
[2:07:09] by unified building and site development program.
[2:07:14] Okay, Chairman Sweeney.
[2:07:20] Commissioner Zipthong.
[2:07:22] Uh-oh.
[2:07:24] Commissioner Wilkinson.
[2:07:25] No.
[2:07:27] Commissioner Milford.
[2:07:28] Yes.
[2:07:30] Commissioner Bunjorn.
[2:07:32] No.
[2:07:34] Commissioner Michael.
[2:07:36] Yes.
[2:07:38] Commissioner Everskarn.
[2:07:40] Yes.
[2:07:41] There'll be four, three in the name.
[2:07:51] Number six, rational and economic development.
[2:07:54] and relations to public services. Chairman Sweeney. Yes.
[2:08:02] Commissioner Ziphol.
[2:08:07] Sorry, Mr. Sir.
[2:08:09] Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Wilkinson.
[2:08:13] Yes. Commissioner Milford. Yes.
[2:08:18] Commissioner Bundering. Yes.
[2:08:21] Commissioner Meyer-Cord. Yes.
[2:08:24] Commissioner Eversbury? Yes. That is 7A, 7O in the positive.
[2:08:37] And number 7 is efficient
[2:08:39] and effective traffic circulation both within and adjacent to the development sites.
[2:08:47] Chairman Sweeney. Yes.
[2:08:50] Commissioner Ziphol.
[2:08:55] Good.
[2:08:58] Thank you. Commissioner Wilkinson? Yes. Commissioner Milford? Yes.
[2:09:06] Commissioner Bunder? Yes. Commissioner Markord? Yes. Commissioner I was
[2:09:13] correct. Yes. That is seven odd, seven oh in the air.
[2:09:33] Can you give some
[2:09:35] guidance as to how these additional findings and recommendations should be
[2:09:38] included for the sake of the support?
[2:09:43] I'm sorry, was that to me or? No, it's
[2:09:45] for the city attorney. I'm not sure what you mean, how these findings that
[2:09:51] that they've just made?
[2:09:53] Yeah, so it's got the space in here for additional comments.
[2:09:56] Is that something that we should be recording at this time?
[2:09:58] Do I should this be a clerk summary of the comments
[2:10:01] if the commissioners have given throughout the meeting?
[2:10:03] This is, I view this as commission's opportunity
[2:10:08] to, I guess, make additional comments,
[2:10:12] observations, recommendations to the Board of Alderman,
[2:10:15] that I guess aren't captured by the previous seven criteria
[2:10:20] that we've voted on.
[2:10:23] Okay.
[2:10:24] I will not be typing those on the screen.
[2:10:26] I will let the clerk do that.
[2:10:27] So they'll be recorded into the final report.
[2:10:30] Thanks, Joe.
[2:10:37] All right.
[2:10:37] Chairman Sweeney, I guess this up to you.
[2:10:39] Do you want to open it up?
[2:10:42] Or do you want me to take a comprehensive plan of what was set earlier?
[2:10:45] How would you like to proceed?
[2:10:47] So I would propose that the clerk make note of the comments.
[2:10:55] made by the commissioners. This is recorded so we can adopt that as the, I hesitate to call those
[2:11:09] findings and recommendations. I don't, I don't think that's necessarily what we did.
[2:11:15] They were, they were comments. I think we can make findings if we get a vote of a majority of the board
[2:11:25] that the comprehensive plan and the criteria that were identified during those comments
[2:11:33] that some members feel that those have not been met, but I'm open to some guidance with
[2:11:41] regard to that. I don't think you want to type out all of the comments from the hearing,
[2:11:47] but the hearing can be noted.
[2:11:51] I personally be happy to type out comments and set it to the
[2:11:54] commission, and they can make sure that all those were said. This does have some specific comments,
[2:12:03] attached, such as character, the neighborhood traffic conditions, public utility facilities,
[2:12:07] and other matters that weren't necessarily particularly mentioned earlier. Is there any other
[2:12:15] public comment for the record that the commission would like to say?
[2:12:23] Visioners anyone
[2:12:28] seeing none. Okay,
[2:12:43] then I will and less I'm mistaken at this time
[2:12:47] This would be the point where we would do the motion to approve or not approve
[2:12:54] So John is there a third option approve with
[2:12:59] Conditions thank you
[2:13:02] So I
[2:13:04] I agree with Jeff that at this point, the next vote is an up or down on the recommendation to the board of all the men.
[2:13:13] However, an additional option is recommendation for approval with conditions or restrictions.
[2:13:21] Is there a consideration or recommendation for approval with any restrictions or conditions from any of the commissioners.
[2:13:32] that they would, that he or she would like to propose.
[2:13:40] I would be curious if you all, you know, commissioner bun dirins,
[2:13:45] Phil, Chairman Sweeney, you know,
[2:13:49] do you guys foresee a way to articulate your concerns and conditions
[2:13:54] or a lot of your comments kind of, you know,
[2:14:00] you'd want to see an updated site plan first,
[2:14:02] or you know, or see comments kind of addressed on a physical site plan
[2:14:05] or renderings or images, or do you think we could word conditions that would give the board of
[2:14:12] all their men, you know, some leverage to request some things on their vote?
[2:14:18] I think that's a really fair question.
[2:14:25] I would sure like to be able to do that
[2:14:29] Is there any one who thinks that they could wordsmith that in a way that we could present that to the board of Alderman with a motion to approve.
[2:14:43] I for one would I really want to see something done in this in this area. So is there any thoughts from anyone that I'm this great point Brandon I'm glad somebody brought it up.
[2:14:56] John, I think you're muted.
[2:14:59] Yeah, I was waiting.
[2:15:00] We need to be called on this adjournment. Okay. As we take all these votes in the consideration, I do want to take this time to remind the commission that all the areas of the site that are currently unplanned will have site plans that will come before the commission for approval.
[2:15:13] So even though we see there's lots of areas that are outlots to don't have anything on them yet voting, yes, on this development tonight would not give part of launch to the developers to build whatever they want there to see fit as long as it fits to redevelopment agreement.
[2:15:24] there was portions of the development. We'll come before the commission as major site plans for approval or just approval or approval with commissions.
[2:15:34] Thank you, Judge.
[2:15:39] Commissioners, anyone with the thought regarding option three.
[2:15:53] I feel like our biggest area of concern and I don't want to certainly don't want to speak for everybody, but I feel like if there's been one unifying comment, it's been at green space in the middle.
[2:16:03] You know, by the entrance kind of comes and curves in and there's the 12,000 square foot public green space,
[2:16:08] the one across the street and then the open park area for the homes.
[2:16:16] I wonder if there's a way to word like specifically, because I personally would approve the development plan,
[2:16:23] kind of the deerberg side, the McBride homes,
[2:16:28] That green face in the middle, you know, I wonder if the McBride home number could drop from 81 to 75 and you pick up a little bit of space there, but I don't know how to read.
[2:16:39] I wouldn't know how to word, you know, gathering, you know, there we go, gathering spaces AB&D, you know, I approve the preliminary development plan with falling conditions that the developers, you know,
[2:16:56] resummit plans for the areas around public areas A, B, and D, or something like that
[2:17:02] effect, maybe?
[2:17:03] I mean, that's that's probably my biggest concern of the plan at this point, personally.
[2:17:09] So how about something along the lines of that the gathering space is A and B, B redesign
[2:17:14] to ensure a continuity of development, ensuring a single unified development.
[2:17:27] in China. Yeah, yeah.
[2:17:29] Drone of the word. You know, yeah, it's, it's like, it's a
[2:17:33] simple, slow, obviously.
[2:17:35] That's like almost too vague of direction. I think. Yeah, exactly.
[2:17:41] I think that's one of those things that we would work through from a staff
[2:17:44] perspective internally. And I also want to remind everybody as well that
[2:17:49] what we're doing here is approving a preliminary development plan
[2:17:52] within nine months to develop or we'll be back to have before you all
[2:17:56] of more final development plan that we're going to prove and that has supposed to be in the same
[2:18:02] just kind of character and spirit of the preliminary development plan and any conditions
[2:18:07] that are put into the preliminary development plan should be addressed at that time as well.
[2:18:12] So I think that there weren't we articulated a number of concerns but one of the primary concerns
[2:18:19] and a big concern is that it doesn't seem to be a unified development to me. I mean it seems like
[2:18:25] like the Deerberg's development and a McBride development.
[2:18:28] And I don't know that there's any way to meld those together to do what I hope to seek.
[2:18:36] I'm not a developer, so maybe it's impossible.
[2:18:45] But that's a concern that I've got.
[2:18:49] This does not look like anything that I thought we were planning
[2:18:56] low these many years and maybe there is no way to articulate that and maybe we just need to
[2:19:02] vote it up or down. I want to vote for this project. I want something to move forward. I'm not
[2:19:12] satisfied that what we saw on these drawings shows a unified project. One of the things that they
[2:19:23] to the subdivision? What does that mean? Private private for the subdivision?
[2:19:28] They now, now that's clearly not unified. You know, so I can't go and park at
[2:19:35] Deerbirds and walk over to that little walking trail because that belongs to the subdivision.
[2:19:41] I mean, they basically stated on the record that they're creating a private area for this unified
[2:19:50] development that's inconsistent.
[2:19:56] So I want to see this thing tied together more. I don't think that that's I don't think that I'm being. I don't think that's ridiculous. Maybe it is. Anyway, if we can't do it, then let's just we can vote it up or down. I'm okay with that too.
[2:20:16] We have a different constituency than the board of all of them.
[2:20:19] They have different considerations.
[2:20:21] I respect that.
[2:20:22] They have to do the things that they do and we have a different constituency.
[2:20:29] So if no one has any other thoughts of any ways to satisfy, maybe just my concerns and we can just move it forward.
[2:20:36] I'm sorry, Andrew, Commissioner Markord.
[2:20:42] I would like to see something along the lines of Brandon said, I think that in a minimum,
[2:20:51] you know, those conditions regarding the shared open spaces that ABND or whatever,
[2:20:59] Mr. Cruz had referenced, in a minimum, having that as a condition,
[2:21:06] that's something I'd like.
[2:21:12] How would you word that?
[2:21:14] Commissioner Markord.
[2:21:16] No, no.
[2:21:17] I'm trying.
[2:21:18] I'm thinking back on what Commissioner Everskirts said,
[2:21:21] something to that effect.
[2:21:32] Maybe we could say all of the green space, all the open space,
[2:21:37] and the development is, you know,
[2:21:40] and the public route is,
[2:21:43] you know, that,
[2:21:45] I mean, obviously not the folks,
[2:21:48] yards,
[2:21:50] but
[2:21:50] But the common space, the common space, you know, is accessible to all people, how about like, how about that all of the common space and green space and the development shall be dedicated to the public.
[2:22:07] Doesn't mean public maintenance, it just means that it's dedicated to the public and the public and use it.
[2:22:12] Not somebody's yard.
[2:22:13] I think that's fair. I don't not only worry would be that why I feel like what we're talking about is a footprint change of the green space and not necessarily like the use of the, because if the footprints of the, of green space, BC and BC and the same.
[2:22:29] My opinion of the plan, although positive, doesn't necessarily change that much in the direction that I wanted to go.
[2:22:36] So there's almost the challenge there to just the footprints and, you know, the direction, the layouts of the green space, not necessarily the uses.
[2:22:48] Thank you.
[2:22:48] How about in and reconsider the
[2:22:55] volume of my experience of the green space?
[2:23:02] These are just recommendations to the board of all of them, I mean, it is not, they don't have to accept them.
[2:23:14] I think the most pivotal things that the community, the community said that's important to residents is that is, you know, public spaces where they can gather.
[2:23:27] people again, again, cited this, you know, the Plaza and Kirkwood. I just think, those are the key
[2:23:35] recommendations to make to the board of Alderman is to make sure that that is delivered as part of
[2:23:44] this project. That that Plaza doesn't keep shrinking and shrinking and shrinking then, you know,
[2:23:51] There is a public space that's activated and programmed for the community.
[2:24:00] I will say to that effect of something that is part of the redevelopment agreement states that the open place space, which is gathering space, see the public plaza.
[2:24:09] It's to be no fewer than 12,000 square feet.
[2:24:16] It's a good start.
[2:24:20] But you're not going to fit hundreds of people in that.
[2:24:23] True.
[2:24:23] you know, we do have a lot of green space and press one, you know, too, but I
[2:24:31] do other question I'd wonder is as, you know, even if we had this condition about the green space,
[2:24:36] you know, Commissioner Bunder and Wilkinson, Zipfel, you know, does that even change? Does that even
[2:24:43] start to change your outlook on the the preliminary development plan? That's kind of the
[2:24:53] any conditions that could address your concerns or for me personally I would say it does not change
[2:25:00] my view on it and I'll say it again I brought this up at the work session and make comments
[2:25:08] about the green space at the work session and I don't we only need to dive into that but I
[2:25:14] I don't think it's going to change
[2:25:20] well but maybe we maybe we just vote yeah I think it's you know
[2:25:27] Okay, yeah, I think that that's, you know, we, we tried and clearly we made a record here, you know, of what the concerns are.
[2:25:39] So, at this point, I am going to call the, and ask for a vote, up or down, a motion to,
[2:25:50] well, let's see, we can make a motion not to approve, or we can make a motion to approve.
[2:26:00] I don't like that.
[2:26:02] I think for the sake of making it easy for everyone to understand if there's a vote not to approve that it means yes means no.
[2:26:08] So I would encourage you to ask me to approve it and just kind of see where it falls.
[2:26:14] Yeah.
[2:26:16] John, that's what I was struggling with because I don't like those negative votes.
[2:26:21] I appreciate it. I was going to confuse there.
[2:26:23] Yeah.
[2:26:24] So at this moment, I would entertain a motion to approve the preliminary development plan as submitted.
[2:26:35] I will make an emotion to approve the preliminary plan as submitted.
[2:26:40] Thank you commissioner.
[2:26:42] Milford, is there a second?
[2:26:45] Okay.
[2:26:46] Thank you commissioner.
[2:26:47] Everyone's good.
[2:26:49] When you are ready, Jeff, we're going to do a roll call vote on this.
[2:26:54] And the yes vote is to approve the plan as submitted.
[2:27:00] Thank you.
[2:27:03] All right.
[2:27:03] Chairman Sweeney?
[2:27:04] No.
[2:27:07] Commissioner Zifel?
[2:27:09] No.
[2:27:10] Commissioner Bundern?
[2:27:11] No.
[2:27:13] Commissioner Milford?
[2:27:15] Yes.
[2:27:20] Commissioner Wilkinson?
[2:27:22] No.
[2:27:25] Commissioner Meyer-Cord?
[2:27:27] Yes,
[2:27:30] and commissioner, I was going.
[2:27:32] Yes.
[2:27:33] That is for the three in the negative.
[2:27:41] So the recommendation from the planning commission to the Board of
[2:27:47] Development is for to to deny the development plan.
[2:27:54] Sorry to ask.
[2:27:57] Do we need to.
[2:27:58] revote that the other way, so then it's in the affirmative or is that just me thinking out loud?
[2:28:05] Mr. Cameron, can I speak up for a moment?
[2:28:06] You absolutely Brian help us up.
[2:28:09] So that was a motion to approve the development plan as a submitted which failed.
[2:28:14] So in theory what you could do is now take a motion to say we recommend not approve it.
[2:28:21] I essentially do that in the negatives.
[2:28:23] Recommend to not approve which would give the recommendation to the board.
[2:28:27] Or if a commission were were so inclined, you could propose to approve the development plan so big to a particular condition and vote on approval with that condition.
[2:28:37] So though I guess a motion to not approve the development would be in order and a motion to approve subject to certain conditions would also be in order.
[2:28:45] It's the will of the commission.
[2:28:47] Thank you.
[2:28:49] I would entertain a motion to approve the development plan with the requirement that
[2:28:57] green spaces be developed and dedicated to the public and be reconsidered is an expanse that
[2:29:08] set that unifies the entire development if there is anyone who is interested in making
[2:29:14] that motion. We could vote on that.
[2:29:25] Hearing none, is there a motion to recommend denial of the preliminary development plan?
[2:29:35] Oh, this is Commissioner Zipfell. I will make the motion to recommend denial of the preliminary plan.
[2:29:40] And is there a second I'll
[2:29:46] second. Thank you, Commissioner Bunron, and that is to deny the preliminary development plan as written.
[2:29:54] Yeah, it's not a proof.
[2:29:56] Correct.
[2:29:56] Or deny in the services.
[2:29:58] Yeah, I don't like denial better.
[2:30:00] All right. Chairman Sweeney. Yes. Commissioners of thought.
[2:30:10] Sorry, I didn't hear you, sir. Yes. Thank you.
[2:30:17] Commissioner Wilkinson. Yes. Commissioner Milford. Now. Commissioner Bunger. Yes.
[2:30:28] Commissioner Michael. Oh. Commissioner, I was here. No.
[2:30:33] So four three four three so the commission has rejected approval of the preliminary
[2:30:43] development plan and has voted to recommend denial of the preliminary development plan
[2:30:50] as written
[2:30:55] for the reasons identified in the public hearing
[2:31:04] and those for the record
[2:31:06] Chairman Sweeney, those will be tradesmen to the board of all of them for their next
[2:31:10] regularly scheduled meeting. Correct.
[2:31:14] And you did indicate, Jeff, were you going to get us a
[2:31:17] synopsis event? Yeah, so I'll make sure that synopsis is put together and then a tradesman
[2:31:23] at the. Thank you very much. This city planner. Yes. Okay, let me.
[2:31:39] Next, I'm on the agenda, John.
[2:31:44] Thank you. You're under the next time you're on the agenda is an zoning modification for the
[2:31:48] changing the zoning of one-crest with plaza from PDC to PDMX state, and this is not
[2:31:56] the screen, so it's not going to work with what I need to do here.
[2:32:03] As part of the proposed customer crossing development, the applicants are requesting that the
[2:32:07] site zoning be modified from plain development, commercial, applying development mix use.
[2:32:11] This would allow for vertical and horizontal mix use development across the development
[2:32:14] parcels. The rezoning modification will apply to the primary personal one-crest with plaza.
[2:32:19] As well as the personal at 9291 Watson Road, which is currently housed by city music.
[2:32:25] This would be the first parcel in the city of Crestwood or the first two parcels I guess.
[2:32:29] On PDMXD, there are currently 20 PDC parcels.
[2:32:33] The parcel at 9b415 Watson is not included at this time, and a zone in change may be requested in the future,
[2:32:39] depending on developer site control.
[2:32:41] That is the out of your Kirkwood garage that was referenced earlier in this evening.
[2:32:45] Again, for those that I have joined us late, this is the site that we're talking about.
[2:32:50] One quest requires us here, the other site that would be part of the rezoning is right here.
[2:32:54] That's city music.
[2:32:56] And we can see the residential homes to the northwest, the industrial and the northeast.
[2:33:01] And commercial directly to the east, south and west.
[2:33:05] And then the government centers up over here.
[2:33:08] This shows what the zoning map currently looks like.
[2:33:11] And the subject, personal, and other was zoomed out is right here.
[2:33:16] And if the rezoning is green dead, it's going to look something like this.
[2:33:20] And you can see a new planned development mix use zone in classification shows up on the legend.
[2:33:25] And the site is turned from red promotional to this kind of aquamarine blue color for PD mix use.
[2:33:32] There's no burden of proof that has to be met prior to enacting a zoning change.
[2:33:36] Instead, what the commissioner does have at hand the board of alderman,
[2:33:40] are to consider the following with their votes consistent
[2:33:42] the section 29, 29, 92, that might be incorrect.
[2:33:47] I'll even check that.
[2:33:48] But what it says is consistency with the comprehensive plan,
[2:33:53] the neighborhood character in future land use,
[2:33:55] does the application further the intent
[2:33:57] of the proposed zoning district
[2:33:59] if there's a development application being considered
[2:34:01] with that compliance with the development code
[2:34:04] of the city's ability to govern the proposed development,
[2:34:07] so do we have fire and EMS services to be able
[2:34:09] to adjust all the needs there.
[2:34:11] The potential effects on property values,
[2:34:14] the implications that are beyond the specific project
[2:34:16] proposed, and the recommendations of city staff.
[2:34:20] The planning commission is the following options
[2:34:22] regarding the petition for zoning change.
[2:34:23] And this is the same as the plan development
[2:34:25] in the general spirit that you all are making a recommendation
[2:34:29] to the board of all women,
[2:34:31] and are not making a decision at this meeting.
[2:34:33] So you can recommend approval from all or part
[2:34:36] of the property, recommend approval.
[2:34:38] other than what the petitioner has opposed for all of the property or recommend denial of the
[2:34:44] rezoning for all of the property. So you guys can say I think the property should be rezoned,
[2:34:48] but I don't think it should be PDMXT. I think it should be this and this is how you would go on
[2:34:54] about that and we are recommending the approval of the application for rezoning change. You all are
[2:35:00] very familiar at this point with the potential project in mind so I'm not going to beat that
[2:35:06] conversation anymore into the ground. And at this point, that's going to go ahead and conclude my presentation on this item.
[2:35:13] Thank you, John.
[2:35:13] Before I open this matter up to the commissioners, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on the issue of changing the zoning for
[2:35:24] Crestwood Plaza from PDC to PDMXD on that topic. Anyone from the public. And Jeff, if you see anyone, would you please identify them for me?
[2:35:42] I see no one at this time of treating the one.
[2:35:45] Thank you Jeff, commissioners, I would open it up to you all for discussion on the issue of the zoning change. Any comments?
[2:35:59] I actually support this move, you know, where my objections were, is I don't believe that the execution of the site plan is in keeping with this sort of notion of plan mixed use development.
[2:36:12] And that's what I stated previously, but I do and and am in belief that this does align with comprehensive plan and it doesn't cause
[2:36:22] actually it helps the city of Crestwood in the you know moving forward in the future. So I actually support this
[2:36:30] rezoning effort. Thank you. Commissioner Zipel, anyone else? Mr. Chamber. I'd like to make a few comments.
[2:36:40] I agree. I think this is a good move. I think it's a good, a good change and I support the
[2:36:47] from PDC to PDMXD. Thank you commissioner Wilkinson. Any other commissioners?
[2:36:56] So I'll commissioner my record earlier if I listen to that. Andrew?
[2:37:02] Come in. I was I think that rezoning this from Plineville, I'm like commercial that
[2:37:09] Plineville next to use is is probably the best step going forward. So that's I'm just echoing
[2:37:20] Thank you. I would agree anybody else. If not, I would entertain a motion to recommend a amendment to the zoning plan. Do I have that motion?
[2:37:33] This is Commissioner America, I'll make a motion.
[2:37:36] Thank you, Commissioner my record.
[2:37:38] Do you have a second?
[2:37:40] We're approval.
[2:37:43] It's fucking that.
[2:37:44] Commissioner Wilkinson.
[2:37:46] It was moved by Commissioner my record that the planning zoning and architecture
[2:37:49] review commission recommend that the board of all the men,
[2:37:52] amend the zoning map of the city of C.D.
[2:37:55] of C.D. of C.D. of C.D. of C.D. of C.D. of C.D.
[2:37:57] of C.D. of C.D. of C.D. of C.D.
[2:37:58] And nine to nine when Watson Road Crestwood Missouri from PDC planned development commercial to PDMXD planned development mixed use motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilkinson when you are ready Jeff, would you give us a role call vote on that.
[2:38:13] Absolutely.
[2:38:14] Chairman Swayney.
[2:38:15] Yes.
[2:38:16] Commissioner Ziphol.
[2:38:18] Yes.
[2:38:20] Commissioner Wilkinson.
[2:38:21] Yes.
[2:38:23] Commissioner Milford.
[2:38:24] Yes.
[2:38:26] Commissioner Myr chord.
[2:38:28] Yes.
[2:38:28] to Mr. Bunder. Yes. Mr. Everscare. Yes. The motion passes by about of seven to nothing and it will be
[2:38:40] forward. That recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Alderman at its meeting.
[2:38:46] some meeting.
[2:38:51] Thank you.
[2:38:53] Thank you.
[2:38:53] Uh, John, um, item for E is our next item.
[2:39:01] Thank you, Your Honor. The next few about the next public hearing this evening is a conditional use permit to construct single family homes in the Cestral crossing development.
[2:39:10] Single family in a PDMXC at one Cestral Plaza.
[2:39:13] As part of the proposed customer development, the customer cost and development, the applicant
[2:39:17] of the request of the safety zoning be changed to PDMXD, plan development in next use.
[2:39:22] A great home is wishes to construct a fully sales single family homes, which are only permitted
[2:39:27] in PDMXD where they conditionally use permit.
[2:39:30] The 81 homes would be a very large size, it would provide for greater lock coverage and smaller
[2:39:34] setbacks, and would normally be allowed in residential zoning districts.
[2:39:39] Again, these are all things that we covered before, but I'm going to go through it because
[2:39:42] at a new public hearing, and we've had some other people jump on.
[2:39:45] The 81 single family homes will be built on three different lot sizes, all having setbacks
[2:39:49] and a lot of power sizes greater than the municipal code allows for residential zoning
[2:39:54] districts on one through our five homes.
[2:39:56] In the sea village, lots may be 40 feet high up to three stories, which is greater than
[2:40:00] the code allows it to in a half stories and 35 feet.
[2:40:05] There's going to be basins to manage storm water on the residential portion of the
[2:40:09] And the homes are going to be built order from a catalog housing and there's going to be a substantial opportunities for diversity within the homes.
[2:40:17] This is what the A.B. and C.Lots will look like that are going to be built on this property.
[2:40:23] If the development moves forward at the board of Alderman.
[2:40:26] And again, this shows us what the setbacks look like, what the approximate lock sizes, what prints and impervious cover are.
[2:40:33] And these, these, especially on the impervious cover side are a lot greater than what we would typically allow, even with our, um, consider changes that we're thinking about moving forward, it will be the advancing at a different date.
[2:40:46] So these are some other product catalogs to get an idea as far as how the homes will look. They are a similar design and cohesive character.
[2:40:54] What's very exterior building materials that add a little bit of differentiation between them. We saw a lot of that earlier. I'm not going to go through all of that again.
[2:41:02] And the commission actions on this item will only be considered by the Board of
[2:41:07] all women if the property is owned PDLXD by the Board of all women.
[2:41:10] And these are all things that we're doing under the assumption that it will happen
[2:41:13] concurrently.
[2:41:15] So from a legal standpoint, I've been advised that concurrently for something like
[2:41:19] this just means happening at the same meeting.
[2:41:22] So if this goes through to the Board of all women, they will be making a decision on
[2:41:27] this assuming that the property is resowned assuming that the development is passed.
[2:41:31] If those things do not happen, this public hearing will be canceled at that point.
[2:41:36] So that is how the commission should be viewing this through that lens.
[2:41:41] And I find that this is both consistent and inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
[2:41:46] The request is consistent with the purpose of PD-playing development makes use.
[2:41:50] It is a, I'm a conditional use within that development.
[2:41:53] The proposed use will have little to no negative impact on the neighborhood character.
[2:41:57] It will actually be creating a neighborhood in and of itself.
[2:41:59] And I find overall that the request meets the burden of proof criteria for conditional use permit online other section 2611 B2.
[2:42:09] The commission as the following options are getting this conditional use permit application. You could recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions or recommend denial.
[2:42:18] And it has the following condition and here, but I actually don't have any conditions for this. So we're recommending the approval of this application for conditional use permit.
[2:42:28] Thank you, John, before I open this item up for questions from the Commission, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this item?
[2:42:37] The conditional use permitted to allow McBride homes to construct single family homes within the PDMXD1 Crestwood Plaza.
[2:42:48] And, Jeff, if you could let me know if you see any.
[2:42:58] I do not see any at this time.
[2:43:00] Thank you.
[2:43:01] Yeah, I'll go ahead.
[2:43:04] Commissioners.
[2:43:04] Commissioner Markord.
[2:43:07] And this was going to ask for any of these, or there is, I know that we're no one
[2:43:12] on Zoom, but has there been any written public comments on it?
[2:43:17] There have been no public comments submitted to the Commission, or for any of the specific
[2:43:21] public hearings this evening.
[2:43:23] Just general questions from the public.
[2:43:25] Thank you.
[2:43:28] Any questions or comments from the Commission regarding this particular question?
[2:43:33] in particular item.
[2:43:34] Jeremy.
[2:43:35] So, commissioners, if well, I've got a question perhaps for legal counsel.
[2:43:39] If we approve single family homes, this conditional use for single family homes and plan
[2:43:45] development mixed use, and we denied the site plan, are we at risk of giving cart launch
[2:43:55] that the entire site could be developed to single family residential?
[2:44:00] Well, I think to answer that the way this is going to work with the rezoning is that
[2:44:10] the rezoning would be voted upon by the Board of Alderman at the next meeting for a preliminary
[2:45:00] What the code provides is, they'll be vote on the zoning change at the same time as the preliminary development plan, the zoning is not actually changed until the final development plan is approved.
[2:45:13] So to answer your question, it would be my opinion that the answer is no, because the property isn't going to be zoned in a way that would permit them to construct single family residences, unless and until that final development plan is approved.
[2:45:29] So, unless the Board of Aldermen is going to approve a final development plan that is entirely single family homes for the entire site,
[2:45:38] you know, they wouldn't be able to just put up to fill the entire site with single family homes.
[2:45:45] Would be better off adding a condition that this is approved if the plan development application PD121 is approved?
[2:45:57] I suppose you could, it's sort of stating what is already kind of explicitly in the code.
[2:46:05] They're not going to be able, because the zoning chain will not be changed to PDMXT if the preliminary development
[2:46:10] plan fails, if the final development plan fails, it's just not going to happen.
[2:46:16] So you could, I suppose you could include it.
[2:46:18] It's my opinion that adding more conditions just sort of more likely to create an unforeseen
[2:46:26] problem down the road than having the restating something that's already in the code.
[2:46:31] Yeah. We don't need a redundancy. I agree. Any other questions from commissioners?
[2:46:38] Thank you, Greg. There was a good question.
[2:46:43] Seeing none, I would accept the motion to
[2:46:47] approve the request for conditional use.
[2:46:58] Greg, are you muted? I don't know. I heard of some
[2:47:02] I'll make, Commissioner Zipfell here. I will make that motion.
[2:47:06] Thank you. Is there second proof?
[2:47:10] I'll second. This is A&O for.
[2:47:12] Mr. Melford, he was moved by Commissioner Zipfell that the planning zoning and architectural
[2:47:16] review commission recommended to the board of all the men approval of an ordinance to grant a conditional
[2:47:20] use permit allowing me to bride and son homes to construct single family homes within the proposed
[2:47:25] Crescent crossing, crossing development at one Crescent Plaza, Crescent Missouri, under the assumption that the property will be zone PDMXD with a no conditions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Milford.
[2:47:37] Jeff, when you're ready, could you give us a roll call vote on that?
[2:47:41] Chairman, do you get that following condition about the impervious cover?
[2:47:47] I understood that John waved that. Did I miss it? No, he's he's correct. That should be that that is the condition that is part of this that got cut off on the PowerPoint presentation. I am
[2:48:04] I apologize you are recommending this approval with the total amount of
[2:48:09] impervious cover on any residential lot and not to exceed 75% of the
[2:48:14] lot size without first obtain a variance from the board of adjustment.
[2:48:18] That is correct.
[2:48:19] Yes.
[2:48:19] And I can understand that I had in there.
[2:48:21] Because the way the way is that anything that we set forward for our standards,
[2:48:26] right now it's 30%.
[2:48:27] We may be modifying that to a higher number on larger meeting.
[2:48:31] But this would be getting ahead of any of the other issues that people could have if they want to do additional plant work at some point in the future, and the we feel comfortable going up to that number for the so I apologize that I got caught off on the presentation.
[2:48:44] Thank you, John, Greg, would you amend your motion to include that condition.
[2:48:48] I'm in the motion to include that condition for sure.
[2:48:51] I'm.
[2:48:51] Mr. Melford, would you amend your second.
[2:48:53] I'll amend my second.
[2:48:54] Thank you.
[2:48:55] With that amended motion and second,
[2:48:58] Jeff, would you give us a roll call? Yes. Thank you.
[2:49:02] Chairman Swimming? Yes.
[2:49:04] Commissioner Zipfall? Yes.
[2:49:07] Commissioner Wilkinson? Yes.
[2:49:11] Commissioner Milford? Yes.
[2:49:13] Commissioner Bundern? Yes.
[2:49:16] Commissioner Myrchord? Yes.
[2:49:19] Commissioner Erosger? Yes.
[2:49:22] There's seven eyes.
[2:49:27] Thank you.
[2:49:28] for approval to the Board of Aldermen at its next meeting.
[2:49:36] The final public hearing this evening,
[2:49:39] John, if you could more orchestra that.
[2:49:42] So this is the next public hearing for this meeting,
[2:49:45] CUP7-21, a conditional use permit to erect an electronic
[2:49:49] message setter sign for the Crestwood Crossing Development.
[2:49:53] And this would be a EMC along Watson River,
[2:49:55] one Crestwood Plaza.
[2:49:57] Partitioner is seeking to allow for the operation of an electronic message center shopping center sign at the westernmost access point along lots of road for the cross with crossing mixed use development.
[2:50:07] The developers refer to this as a pylon sign.
[2:50:10] We don't have a definition for a pylon sign in our code we would consider this a shopping center sign.
[2:50:15] The sign would be placed in the median of the ingress approximately 25 feet from the roadway.
[2:50:20] And the proposed baseless material is basically which will be of the same aesthetic as the principal buildings and the commercial portion of the development.
[2:50:28] Again, this gives us the designing and aerial context of the area.
[2:50:32] And the sign would go right here and right here.
[2:50:39] And looking at it on the site plan, this shows exactly what we're talking about.
[2:50:43] They had originally proposed a separate location and after talking things through with other staff members internally, including public works.
[2:50:49] the fire department. We all felt it made the most sense and was better for traffic visibility to
[2:50:54] move into this location here and the developer and the sign company were metable to that.
[2:50:59] Zooming in we can see how it looks. We got a little bit of a preview of this earlier on from the
[2:51:03] developer and this shows an approximate location of where things are going to be. West is up at the
[2:51:09] top towards second 10 east towards the city of St. Louis is down towards the bottom and here's the
[2:51:19] interior signboards being representative of the various different commercial and
[2:51:24] restaurant properties that will be in the development 87 inches wide and 28 inches high
[2:51:31] give and take these properties right here that are going to be 42. The electronic message set
[2:51:36] of portion will be 94 inches high and 178 inches wide and here's what it looks like from the
[2:51:43] full cut sheet from Ziglin signs. The sign company that will be I'm proposing to put this up
[2:51:49] installed. And here is the existing conditions. It's a little hard to visualize, because it's going to be a little bit
[2:51:57] radically different. Once everything goes into place, but for this continuity,
[2:52:01] it is the ingress and ingress by the cost of street from emails and savers. And right about what I was
[2:52:08] standing here is where the sign would be kind of pushing up against where the sign of Ben stop area
[2:52:13] apparently it's. So it meets all of the requirements that we would need for regulatory compliance. The only thing that's a little bit strange is the height. And there's a lot of somewhat conflicting things in our sign code to talk about how this should be.
[2:52:29] So on one hand, it says that if it's a ground mounted sign, it can only be up to a certain height, but if it's on a pole, it can be much higher.
[2:52:38] And it doesn't really address how this should look for a shopping center sign, even though we technically consider those to be ground signs.
[2:52:45] So the EMC would be 29 feet at its top point, which is one foot taller than the convertible of full sign.
[2:52:52] And the sign overall is going to be 35 feet high, which is larger than what we would typically permit at 25 feet.
[2:53:00] We feel that for a development of the significance 35 feet is appropriate.
[2:53:03] It's not going to be as towering, as for instance, the Dear Birds and McKenzie point down the road and choose very, which is 45 feet high, and that's how we're looking at this.
[2:53:16] So that's the only part of this compliance that doesn't meet what we'd be looking for.
[2:53:20] We got documentation from Zigglin signs to talk about everything else and saying that it's going to work as far as the amount of light being emitted and turn off and things like that.
[2:53:30] The only other thing that's recorded and asked to us here was the distance from residential use and the code defines this as residential zoning districts.
[2:53:40] And the ideas that this is going to be placed at a PDMXD, however, because it is going to be greater than 100 feet from any actual residential domicile.
[2:53:49] We thought that that means the spirit of the code and what the code is proposing as far as distance away from residential use.
[2:53:55] It's going to be within the view of all the commercial uses near Watson and Saffington there and it's going to be at least 500 feet many residential use on any side
[2:54:04] So we don't feel as though there's any concerns with this not being code compliant other than the very minor issue with the height
[2:54:11] And I guess it's really minor depending on how you want what that it but we don't think it's that big of a concern because there aren't any public safety issues that are going to be associated with it from our standpoint
[2:54:20] So, we find that as that inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan, as we've talked about,
[2:54:26] another meeting doesn't really address signage, the request is consistent with the purpose of PDMXD,
[2:54:31] considering the placement of the sign in relation to the residential development.
[2:54:35] We find that it's not going to have any negative impact on the neighborhood character,
[2:54:40] and that it does need the burden of fruit criteria for a conditional use permit outlined in section 26, 11, B2.
[2:54:49] So just like the other conditional use permit, the commission has the option to recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions or recommend denial.
[2:54:59] We are recommending the approval of this condition of the approval of this application with the condition that the construction of the sign be time to correlate with completion of phase one of the crossword crossing development.
[2:55:11] And we put that in there because usually these will have a condition that says that the either
[2:55:16] sign needs to be up or a building needs to be occupied within six months, 12 months, something
[2:55:21] like that.
[2:55:22] For this, we've felt it made a lot more sense to just say, you know, as it seems the grocery
[2:55:25] store is ready to be open, the sign should be up and ready to go too.
[2:55:29] And I can't imagine a feasible instance where deer birds would want to do that, but just
[2:55:34] to make sure that there isn't any conflicting language or any boilerplate language or something
[2:55:38] that might already be in the code that way if you split with that, we wanted to get this into
[2:55:42] the CUP ordinance as well. So that's everything that I have on this.
[2:55:47] Thank you, John. Before I open this up to questions from the Commission,
[2:55:51] is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this particular issue,
[2:55:55] which is a conditional use permit allowing for an electric message center sign at one
[2:56:00] rest would Plaza.
[2:56:10] I do not see anybody at this time, Mr.
[2:56:13] Chairman. Seeing none, any comments or questions from the commission?
[2:56:24] I'm Michael. Oh, you can go Greg.
[2:56:27] Thank you.
[2:56:29] The proximity of this sign to the roadway.
[2:56:33] It seems, you know, I'm looking at the site plan snippet on the left.
[2:56:38] And it seems like, you know, the first car that sort of stacked their
[2:56:41] to go straight on old saffington or turn left has clear vision at the car behind it potentially
[2:56:47] wouldn't have vision in case they were to sort of roll through, you know, follow the other
[2:56:51] car through the intersection sort of thing. So I'm just wondering if the location of this sign
[2:56:57] needs to be pulled inward to decide a little bit more so that there's better visibility for traffic.
[2:57:05] And I'll kind of pose that question and leave it for discussion.
[2:57:12] John.
[2:57:13] I would say we feel comfortable with the location as it is.
[2:57:15] It meets all the requirements for the code and because it is going to be a signalized
[2:57:19] intersection, we feel like it's going to be okay.
[2:57:21] It wasn't signalized.
[2:57:22] I think we want to have a move back maybe another 15 feet or so.
[2:57:26] But with the traffic light there, we think it's going to be alright.
[2:57:31] Any other thoughts or three or two?
[2:57:33] That issue, Greg?
[2:57:34] Yeah.
[2:57:34] Follow up on that.
[2:57:35] There's sufficient a walkway to actually cross that intersection for the new development and then, you know, sort of like miss the sign because I don't see, but I don't see represented here at the, at the, at the stop line, if you will, for folks exiting the site is I don't see any sort of acknowledgement of where the cross walk might occur there and as we, you know, talk about pedestrian friendly sort of development and I know this is preliminary, I get it, but, you know, those kinds of things start to feed into what kind of,
[2:58:05] of available space you have. So I just don't want to, I'd be concerned about putting what is a very solid
[2:58:13] wall that's 35 plus feet tall that potentially blocks, blocks few of pedestrians and blocks
[2:58:20] few of, of traffic. I think that's a great question. And something that you all have probably
[2:58:26] noticed is that there's been a lot of conversations that we've had around pedestrian connectivity
[2:58:31] throughout the site. And then those are represented on the site plane yet.
[2:58:35] understanding is that we're still kind of working through how all of that's going to work
[2:58:39] and where there's going to be crosswalk areas that are in between a blocks and things like that,
[2:58:44] especially on the residential side in addition to things on the commercial. So none of that is
[2:58:48] represented in the site plane yet. And I think we've had a lot of positive conversations with both
[2:58:53] D3 and McBride to get an idea around how we can better increase connectivity prior to the final
[2:58:58] development plan being approved. And Drew, I don't know if you have any additional comments on that
[2:59:03] you'd like to make it this time for pedestrian access and crossing right here.
[2:59:08] I think we'll get that figured out before the final development plan is in a minute.
[2:59:11] Sure, that's actually a great question.
[2:59:13] In the development plan, it will include a crosswalk 88 compliant crosswalk that will cross
[2:59:18] parallel with the five walk that you see both on the, this would be on the west and the east side.
[2:59:23] And essentially there would be a cut in that, in that meeting for a tool out,
[2:59:27] pedestrians to transfer across the intersection.
[2:59:32] It's not represented in this, in this exact plan or this rendering if you owe, but it would certainly be in the development plan.
[2:59:44] Any other questions?
[2:59:45] Then I was just going to ask, you know, I know this commission has a disdain for electronic message centers.
[2:59:51] I don't quite feel that strongly about them, but I would be curious, you know, I feel like every electronic message center that we've looked at.
[3:00:00] We've kind of asked the applicant to explain the appeal of them. And I'd be curious from Dearberg's perspective, you know, what's the benefit of, you know, 94 inches by 178 inches of electronic message center right below their big logo, you know, how do you guys weigh, you know, kind of the cost of any MC there versus just giving up that space to your other tenants or what's what do you guys see as the benefit for that.
[3:00:26] Yeah, if I may, that's a great question and we actually have these in the majority of our locations
[3:00:32] and the purpose of them is to communicate to our customers.
[3:00:37] It will run sale prices, et cetera, and it's very important, very integral to speaking to
[3:00:42] our customer and the point of the size of it, you know, these used to be lightbulbs and
[3:00:49] quite candidly did not look very good and they weren't very appealing.
[3:00:52] And essentially now, they're made to where from
[3:00:54] Dactronics that they're almost like a television screen
[3:00:58] and the clarity is absolutely wonderful.
[3:01:00] It is a huge investment for us for this,
[3:01:03] but it is very important for us to speak to our customers
[3:01:05] and run sales and specials and let folks know
[3:01:08] what's going on within the store.
[3:01:09] So we do believe this is an integral part of our marketing
[3:01:12] efforts towards the customer.
[3:01:14] Great, thanks.
[3:01:16] Thank you.
[3:01:18] Andrew?
[3:01:21] Thank you.
[3:01:21] I'd say I have a couple of questions.
[3:01:22] I know that it's sort of continuing on in the same vein of what Commissioner Everskirts said
[3:01:30] is that there's been questions and other electronic message center signs that have had
[3:01:39] brightness that wasn't a just for our brightness. Those two bright and we've had some difficulty
[3:01:47] working with some of those people. And so I just wanted to, like, obviously, I guess it's
[3:01:56] coming on place with all these signs that they'll be scaled up and scaled down, brightness,
[3:02:00] based on the time and how bright it is during the day. Is that correct?
[3:02:07] That is a, a John, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[3:02:08] I was going to say that, that is correct. We've been working really closely with Jared over
[3:02:12] in science. And he's pretty familiar with how what we need to do and how we do things here in
[3:02:18] Christwood. There are also the same company that's seen in the science for TDNail up the street.
[3:02:23] And we feel like there's both things that are already in the science code to talk about how this
[3:02:28] sort of should be done and if it's not compliant, there's parts of our code that say they have to fix it
[3:02:34] and get it compliant. But we also feel comfortable based on the documentation that they've submitted
[3:02:38] to us in the conversations that we've had,
[3:02:40] both on this sign and prior signs
[3:02:42] that we're not gonna have any issues with compliance.
[3:02:44] And if we do, I think we'll be able to take care
[3:02:46] of it quickly.
[3:02:47] And I'll let Drew go ahead and add his two cents an afternoon.
[3:02:50] Okay, that's important to get you.
[3:02:51] So that makes sense.
[3:02:53] I just want to double check.
[3:02:55] Yeah, and these can also be ran from your iPhone,
[3:02:57] any more of the technology has come so far on these.
[3:02:59] So it can be dialed back, you know, four or backwards
[3:03:04] at a moment's notice.
[3:03:06] Thanks, Mr. Baxter.
[3:03:07] Maylar, Mr. Grace.
[3:03:10] Any other questions?
[3:03:11] Mr. Chairman, I just have a comment.
[3:03:15] Maybe I'm getting ahead of this, but I would just maybe request that if we make a motion to approve this that.
[3:03:23] With the, you know, the pending final site plan in the addition of a crosswalk that this location could be adjusted
[3:03:31] as needed to ensure that there's visibility through that intersection.
[3:03:37] I know it's listed as a proximate.
[3:03:39] I just kind of want to just make sure that that's out there.
[3:03:44] John, do we need that as a condition,
[3:03:47] or is that something that the staff can ensure?
[3:03:52] That's something that will ensure that the sign-proving process
[3:03:54] once it gets to that point we go through all the approval.
[3:03:56] At that point it's going to get a public services
[3:03:59] the part of the apartment authority had a good look at it, they'll have a greater look at it once
[3:04:04] we get a little further down the line instead of proving permits for this sign and they told us 25 feet
[3:04:09] if it needs to get moved back another four feet I'm sure we can make that work as long as we're
[3:04:13] not cutting into the visibility and depriving the applicant of their property value by doing that.
[3:04:21] So I think we'll be able to make that work I think we'll be able to move it as we kind of need to
[3:04:29] And that this ingress in the address in the media and the approximate location will make sure that it's no pure and 25 feet if it needs to be more will make sure that it's more.
[3:04:39] Thank you.
[3:04:40] Thank you.
[3:04:42] Any other questions or comments or concerns from the commission.
[3:04:49] Seeing none.
[3:04:50] Commissioner Evergreen's comments were reflective of my general position with regard to electronic signs, but I've been beaten back by.
[3:04:59] applicants in the Board of Aldermen. So I will entertain a motion to you approve the
[3:05:08] this a request for an electronic sign with the condition that the construction be tied to the
[3:05:15] our correlate with phase one completion. Is there a motion to approve that
[3:05:26] anybody.
[3:05:30] I'll make a motion to approve commission or my record.
[3:05:33] Thank you, Commissioner Markord, is there a second?
[3:05:37] I'll second, Commissioner Zipfell.
[3:05:39] Thank you, Greg.
[3:05:40] I still want to be first.
[3:05:43] Moved, thank you, Mr. Markord, for the planning zoning and architectural view commission.
[3:05:46] Recommended the board of all of an approval of an ordinance to grant a commissionly use permit,
[3:05:50] allowing D3 commercial realty group LLC,
[3:05:53] direct an electronic message center,
[3:05:56] shopping center sign at one Crestwood Plaza, Crestwood, Missouri,
[3:05:59] along Watson Road,
[3:06:01] that shall be constructed in correlation with the phase one completion, the motion was
[3:06:11] seconded by Commissioner Zipfel and Jeff, when you are ready, could we have a roll
[3:06:15] call vote on that?
[3:06:17] Yes.
[3:06:17] Chairman Swaney?
[3:06:20] Commissioner Zipfel?
[3:06:22] Yes.
[3:06:23] Commissioner Wilkinson?
[3:06:25] Yes.
[3:06:26] Commissioner Milford?
[3:06:28] Yes.
[3:06:29] Commissioner Meyer Quart. Yes. Commissioner Bunderman. Yes. Commissioner Errorsger. Yes.
[3:06:38] The motion passes seven to none let it be noted that I have voted in favor of an electronic media sign.
[3:06:49] This matter will be boarded to the board of all of them at its next regularly scheduled meeting.
[3:06:57] That ends our public hearings.
[3:07:00] I would entertain a motion to close our public hearings.
[3:07:05] Hereings.
[3:07:06] I'll make the motion to close.
[3:07:07] Thank you.
[3:07:08] Commissioner Zippell is there second.
[3:07:10] I say.
[3:07:11] Thank you.
[3:07:12] Commissioner Bunder and all those in favor.
[3:07:14] Hi.
[3:07:15] Hi.
[3:07:15] Thank you. Hearing none of the public hearings scheduled for this evening are now closed. Our next item on our agenda is new business.
[3:07:24] A subdivision plaque for one Crestwood Plaza. John.
[3:07:28] Thank you, Your Honor. This is a preliminary subdivision plaque for the Crestwood crossing development and one Crestwood Plaza.
[3:07:35] The petitioner is seeking to subdivide the single parcel on one Crestwood Plaza for the Crestwood crossing horizontal mixed use development.
[3:07:41] The proposed plant would divide the parcel into two lots eight for commercial about 24.5 two acres and be for residential
[3:07:50] 22.45 acres
[3:07:52] roughly 50 50 depending on how much you want to split here
[3:07:57] This gives us an idea as far as what it's gonna look like
[3:08:00] Lot A would consist of the outlots that are along lots and a road the city music side is already subdivided out
[3:08:06] That's included as part of this and then all of that would be one parcel and then everything
[3:08:11] for the McBride portion over here in Lot B would be a separate parcel. This is a much more
[3:08:18] detailed part that shows some of the elevation lines and a whole lot of other stuff that
[3:08:22] is almost near impossible to read on the computer screen.
[3:08:27] And the the final site plan is going to
[3:08:29] modify the site with the two primary parcels. And then three out lots along lots and a row in
[3:08:33] the five total lots in addition to city music, which like we've said is already a standalone
[3:08:38] personal and not part of a plaque. These lots are as follows.
[3:08:42] A lot one is going to be the principle anchor, so in the development, the accessory
[3:08:45] buildings and the proposed plaza area on the western portion of the parcel.
[3:08:50] A lot two will be shoved divided in the E-D-1, lots for symbol family homes in addition
[3:08:54] to the open space on the property that's talking about the open space that's in the
[3:08:59] northeast corner of the property there.
[3:09:02] A lot three, four, and five would be along lots in the road and this gives us an idea
[3:09:07] for what that's going to look like as that's light out.
[3:09:10] So earlier in the evening there was a concern about whether or not
[3:09:12] approving the big bride homes would allow for them to be just placed anywhere on the parcel.
[3:09:19] This plant would ensure that that is not happening.
[3:09:22] That it's only going to be part of the site plant as it's planned out.
[3:09:26] And we'll only take place in a lot beat.
[3:09:29] I don't see a situation where deer birds are going to be giving up that control
[3:09:33] and having the bride go to that.
[3:09:35] certainly not going to be part of the redevelopment agreement that's not anything that's
[3:09:38] not anybody's radar, but approving this plan would further reinforce the idea that the
[3:09:42] residential portion and the three McGride villages will be on a lot too of the plant here,
[3:09:49] and the commercial portions will be here here and over in this portion as well and here is where
[3:09:56] the grocery store will be, here's where the plaza space will be, a couple other restaurants over here,
[3:10:02] And we're all familiar with the site plan at this point.
[3:10:06] This is not an item that the Commission is making a recommendation on.
[3:10:10] This is an item that the Commission has the power to approve, approve with conditions
[3:10:14] or deny.
[3:10:15] And the Commission has encouraged the discussed the reasons for either voting for or against
[3:10:19] the plan.
[3:10:19] It is written in the coming that if the plan is denied, the reason must be rendered in recorded
[3:10:24] in the midst.
[3:10:25] The mayor and the board of all of it had the power to review to reconsider the Commission's
[3:10:29] decision on this matter if they so choose and I am recommending the approval of this preliminary
[3:10:34] fact commissioners any discussion with regard to this item.
[3:10:50] Hearing none, I would hear me.
[3:10:53] This is commissioners, it felt. So with this, with this subdivision, are we, does this also
[3:11:00] to constitute approval of the layout of of of the parcels of land for each of the properties.
[3:11:08] John.
[3:11:09] I will leave that one for the city attorney to answer.
[3:11:17] The reason this comes up is because you know part of the conversation we had earlier about the site plan approval had to do with the open space.
[3:11:23] And so if there's adjustments or modifications to the open space that might affect the parcel layout or the parcel shape or something like that then I don't know that I would be interested in approval.
[3:11:34] So I'm interested to hear what what our attorney is to say.
[3:11:37] But my understanding is they would be approving how this looks right here.
[3:11:41] Is that correct?
[3:11:41] Well, I think so.
[3:11:43] And to be candid on you, you probably would know this better than I and I would just remind
[3:11:48] the just because you've had more time to review what has been submitted as the preliminary
[3:11:53] plot than I have.
[3:11:56] And I would just emphasize to the commission that this is approval of a preliminary
[3:12:00] are very plat and that they still will have to go through the final plat approval process and
[3:12:06] what the code says about approval of final plat and if you can bear with me I'm trying to pull
[3:12:14] up the section so that I have this exactly right.
[3:12:27] So the rezoning should be concurrent with
[3:12:33] when there is a proposed subdivision as we're doing here and the code also states that in no
[3:12:38] the Board of all of them in a private final
[3:12:40] platform board adopting an ordinance of proving the
[3:12:42] rezoning of the this subject track.
[3:12:46] So in other words, the I guess the final
[3:12:51] plan of approval is going to depend on the approval of
[3:12:55] the of the rezoning planned to be on the next
[3:12:58] juice.
[3:12:59] I'd genie, I see you have your hand up.
[3:13:01] If you can help educate us on this, we'd appreciate it.
[3:13:05] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to help
[3:13:07] clarify maybe some of the questions.
[3:13:10] What's before you on this particular vote is just merely a lot split.
[3:13:14] It's just dropping a line so that we can own it in two separate entities.
[3:13:21] It's not approving any layout at all.
[3:13:23] In fact, from a title standpoint, what we have to come back after the waterball done in
[3:13:27] a proves if they approve the zoning and the final development plan, we would have to come
[3:13:33] with the record platform, the single family, residential to subdivide all of those lots into individual
[3:13:41] lots. The same would be for the commercial if they want to subdivide outlacks on that.
[3:13:46] So this is just merely a lot split. All we're doing is dropping a line for title reasons.
[3:13:53] That is it. It does not approving a layout. It's not approving any carve-up of individual lots or
[3:13:58] lot. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. It's basically just dividing them into two,
[3:14:02] 24-ish, acre lots. That's correct. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Yeah,
[3:14:09] thank you so much. John, I've got a question for you then on that note. So was there a reason that
[3:14:16] procedurally the entire site we decided to to rezone at plan development mixed use and then come back
[3:14:23] parcel it off in this manner, in lieu of creating the parcel split, and then coming back and saying
[3:14:31] a lot be is going to be not planned development, mixed use in college, you know, are three or are,
[3:14:37] you know, two or whatever. Can you advise or explain a little bit about the thinking behind that?
[3:14:43] My understanding is that when the request for proposals was put out last year, it was put out
[3:14:48] for a mixed use district and that the property should be zone PDMXT as a result of that.
[3:14:53] So this is keeping in spirit with the request for proposals and keeping in spirit with what the city wanted to see for us.
[3:15:00] That it should be a site that's selling mixed use and kind of the same feeling that the commission had was regardless of how the layout is, if it's horizontal, if something else is going on with it, having it as a mixed use development was what made the most sense.
[3:15:16] So I think that there's certainly an argument to be made that you could have said, you know, we'll split it into two lots and lot be becomes PDR and the state's PDC or something like that.
[3:15:25] That wasn't really in the spirit of what the RFP asked for, so that was what the applicants
[3:15:29] went ahead and submitted. I'm sure there wasn't any, you know, um,
[3:15:34] further on, on Dearburg side to say that we need to be zone on there. I certainly, there was
[3:15:38] on the drive side, but I think that just kind of makes sense as far as what it was that the city asked
[3:15:43] for is far the, um, what we wanted to see in a development. And then leave it up to the developers
[3:15:49] to work out the specifics of what exactly it was that they were proposing.
[3:15:54] Thank you very much.
[3:15:57] Any other questions or comments from commissioners, and if not, I would entertain a motion to approve?
[3:16:07] Thank you.
[3:16:07] Motion to approve.
[3:16:08] Thank you, Greg.
[3:16:09] Is there a second?
[3:16:13] I'll second.
[3:16:14] Thank you, Jordan.
[3:16:16] It was moved by commissioners.
[3:16:17] The bill that the planning zoning architecture review commission approves a plan to subdivide the parcels at one
[3:16:24] we play as a nine to nine one Watson Road Crestwood Missouri. The motion was seconded by
[3:16:30] Commissioner Wilkinson. Jeff, when you are ready, I will accept a roll call.
[3:16:37] Absolutely. John, did I? I didn't miss any conditions. So, did I?
[3:16:40] So, I know conditions. Okay, perfect. Thank you. All right. Chairman Sweeney?
[3:16:46] Commissioner Zifkel? Yes. Commissioner Wilkinson? Yes.
[3:16:51] Commissioner Noford? Yes. Commissioner Bunderon? Yes. Commissioner Myercourt?
[3:17:00] Yes.
[3:17:02] Commissioner Everskard?
[3:17:07] Commissioner Everskard, do we lose?
[3:17:14] Looks like we lost him, but we got 68.
[3:17:17] We lost him, but we do have six days, the most of those care.
[3:17:20] Motion carries.
[3:17:23] Okay. That is all the items we have on new business.
[3:17:27] The next item on our agenda is a discussion.
[3:17:31] There are no particular discussion items listed is there any items that the commissioners wish to raise at this point.
[3:17:46] Seeing none.
[3:17:49] Alderman Kennedy, if you're still with us.
[3:17:53] We're ready for your Alderman record.
[3:17:56] Thank you, Chairman Swinney and first, just a thank you to Dear Burns to Drew and Brent for your great presentation.
[3:18:07] I really appreciate it, Jeannie, with her pride and nice job.
[3:18:13] Really appreciate the level of detail you've gone through and to all the commissioners really enjoyed all of your comments.
[3:18:22] just we have a lot of work to do yet.
[3:18:25] I'm hopeful we can figure out something,
[3:18:29] but really appreciate the camaraderie and the collaboration
[3:18:35] and working towards the great of good for our citizens.
[3:18:41] And also thanks to the public for your feedback and interest as well.
[3:18:45] Another word that many speaking tonight,
[3:18:48] But still, I think they're comments for, well, we see.
[3:18:53] On the board of all of it, we had a, we actually had a meeting last night.
[3:18:57] It was real light, which was great.
[3:19:00] Really, there was nothing controversial.
[3:19:02] We had a discussion on this concept of flatware,
[3:19:06] which it really relates to stormwater detention.
[3:19:09] It relates to dryways and padiose.
[3:19:12] There's really no action taken.
[3:19:14] Similar to the,
[3:19:16] a lot coverage and lots of escalation. We're working through a lot of research and so we kind of
[3:19:24] kicked it back to staff to do some more research before we consider that maybe further and really trying
[3:19:30] to tie it into what the commission's doing with law coverage etc. So those two kind of go hand in the hand.
[3:19:37] And really that's all I have. Hope everyone knows a good night and be good and be safe. Thank you, Commissioner.
[3:19:43] I'm sorry. Thank you. I hope you understood the concerns that were expressed and our, I believe, unanimous desire to see you local stalwarts here in Crestwood. I look forward to everything else that we can work with together.
[3:20:09] And I too would like to thank the staff or all of their excellent work on this and I would like to thank the commissioners for their excellent spirit and thoughtful comments with regard to this. I, I, I, I, I'm sure there are folks who are disappointed. I hope they're not angry with the vote. I are the votes that occurred. I hope it is understood that I think that this, this commission work.
[3:20:43] to deliver its charge. As I indicated, we have a different constituency than some of the other boards and elected officials, and I think everyone on this board takes that seriously and I just want to say thank you again to the applicants for an excellent presentation and thank you for everyone else for all your hard work.
[3:21:06] With that, we have nothing else on the agenda and I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
[3:21:10] I'll make that motion.
[3:21:11] Thank you. Greg, is there second?
[3:21:15] I'll second.