The fate of a proposed 128-unit apartment complex in Barnhart likely will be decided at the Jefferson County Council’s meeting on Monday.
The County Council voted 4-3 Feb. 14 to preliminarily approve a rezoning request from Lorenzo LLC of St. Louis that would allow the construction of five apartment buildings on 9.17 acres across Old Hwy. M from the Karsch’s Village Market.
An unoccupied single-family home sits on the property, which has long been undeveloped.
Unless the legislation to rezone the site from non-planned community commercial to planned residential and the accompanying development plan is amended on Monday, a final vote could be taken that evening.
Lorenzo LLC, which has built similar apartment complexes in Fenton, Turtle Creek and Sugar Creek, plans to name the Barnhart development Stoney Pine.
The plan calls for four two-story buildings of one-bedroom apartments and a fifth two-story building with two-bedroom units. An office-clubhouse building and pool also are in the plans.
Dave Vonarx of VonArx Engineering in Hillsboro, who represented the developer at a Jan. 27 public hearing before the county’s Planning and Zoning Commission, said rent for the apartments likely would be similar to those charged in the other developments, about $1,500 a month.
The P and Z board voted 5-0 after that public hearing to recommend the County Council approve the request.
While the County Council voted to advance the issue to Monday’s meeting, it wasn’t without some controversy.
Immediately after the legislation was proposed, Councilman Charles Groeteke (District 4, Barnhart), whose district includes the site, introduced an amendment that would have forced the developer to add 18 parking spaces to the 238 spaces included in the plan.
The P and Z board had granted a variance, or exception, that would have allowed the developer to have fewer than the two parking spaces per housing unit, or 256 spots, specified in the county’s development codes for the proposed complex.
“We changed our standards from 1-point something (1.5 spaces) to two on the recommendation of the county’s planning staff a couple of years ago,” Groeteke said. “I thought it was a reasonable thing to vote for. What do we have those rules in place for if we’re not going to follow them?”
The council voted 4-3 to accept Groeteke’s amendment, but when a vote was called on the amended legislation, it failed for lack of a second, meaning Groeteke did not seek to have a vote on his amended legislation.
The council then voted to remove Groeteke’s amendment and then voted to advance the original version of the legislation to a possible final vote on Monday.
Council chair Tracey Perry (District 5, Festus) scolded Groeteke for tying up the council, as well as assistant county counselor Jason Cordes for half a day drafting an amendment that he had no intention of voting for.
“That was absolutely ridiculous,” Perry told Groeteke. “Why would you waste our time and the legal department’s time on this?”
In an interview, Groeteke said he was surprised the council voted for his amendment.
“I fully expected it to fail,” he said. “Most of what I bring forward isn’t passed. But either way, I wasn’t going to vote for it anyway. I was just trying to make it less painful if it did pass.”
He said he doesn’t believe that proposing an amendment, then not supporting it, was a waste of time.
“I thought it was a good use of time,” he said. “Some of the council members didn’t want to follow the codes we have in place, and we now know who they are. Why put codes in place if you’re not going to follow them?”
Groeteke said he generally votes against development proposals that generate controversy.
“Developments that citizens have concerns about, that affect their neighborhood, as in the past, I follow the desires of the citizens as best I can,” he said.
Plan had public opposition
Four people, including three who live near the lot, spoke against the rezoning request at the Jan. 27 public hearing.
“It’s a gallon in a quart jar,” said Lawrence Null of the density of the development. “They carve out those hills and put so many people in there. They’re disregarding the local people who already live there.
“I’d love to see apartments,” Null said. “I love to see people have a place to stay, but there’s got to be a better place. I wish it had developed commercially.”
In addition to Karsch’s Village Market, the property is near Walgreens, a Mercy clinic and AutoZone and was zoned for commercial use in 2009, but county planner Josh Jump noted that it has remained undeveloped. He also said the multifamily housing would provide a transition between the commercial properties along Hwy. M and the large-lot single-family homes adjacent to the lot on three sides.
Another neighbor, Monica Bates, had concerns similar to Null’s.
“There is too much impact on that small property,” she said. “What happens when everyone flushes their toilet at the same time? What effects will this have on our electric grid?”
Joe Phillips of Piros Signs, another commercial property situated between Hwy. M and Old Hwy. M immediately south of the lot, said he worried about potential stormwater runoff from the apartment complex, additional traffic on Old Hwy. M and the apartments attracting tenants or guests who would use the business for overflow parking and possibly steal or vandalize from the Piros lot.
“On Old Hwy. M, the 45 mph speed limit is just a suggestion. The road has no shoulders, and trucks use it all the time because Hwy. M is a limited-access road. We’ve lost parts of our fence (as a result of accidents) more than a couple of times,” Phillips said. “And we have had lots of losses on our lot in the last couple of years, and this has the potential to bring more crime to the area.”
Christopher Johnson, an attorney for Lorenzo LLC, disputed that last point.
“We hear it time and time again, that when you bring in apartments, crime will go up. These aren’t Section 8 apartments. These are luxury apartments. This will not be the case here, as it hasn’t been the case in our other Jefferson County developments.”
Planning commissioners debated and then ultimately agreed to allow the 238 parking spaces.
Johnson noted that because the development calls for only 24 two-bedroom units, the planned number of spaces should be sufficient and would have exceeded the county’s former standard of 1.5 spaces per unit.
He said adding spaces that would not be used would only serve to increase stormwater runoff.
“We can make the (two) retention ponds larger, but that would cut down on the green space that residents can walk their dogs or have a picnic,” he said.
Groeteke and council members Renee Reuter (District 2, Imperial) and Phil Hendrickson (District 3, Arnold) voted against the unamended legislation.
Perry and fellow council members Brian Haskins (District 1, High Ridge), Dan Stallman (District 6, De Soto) and Vicky James (District 7, Cedar Hill) voted to advance the unamended legislation.