The developer of an apartment complex in Imperial has gotten the go-ahead to expand.
The Jefferson County Council voted 5-1 Aug. 14 to approve a rezoning request and development plan from G’Sell Contracting Inc. of Imperial that will allow the developer to add two more buildings with a total of 20 more apartments at its Park West development off the I-55 West Outer Road south of Main Street in Imperial.
In June 2019, the County Council approved a rezoning request for Park West, and those plans included seven buildings with 84 two- and three-bedroom apartment units to be built on the vacant 5.47-acre lot behind the Imperial Post Office and First State Community Bank.
Park West is now being built, with four of the buildings fully occupied and the others in the final phases of construction.
G’Sell plans to expand the development on 2.48 acres of vacant land behind the bank. To do so, it needed to rezone 1.03 acres from non-planned community commercial to planned mixed residential, matching the rest of the lot.
Prior to the County Council approving that rezoning, the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission, which advises the council on land-use issues in unincorporated parts of the county, voted 6-2 on July 13 to recommend approval.
At that P and Z board meeting, Igor Gusev of Henneghan and Associates of Arnold, which drew up the plans for the original complex and the proposed expansion, said, “Overall, the project is a great success. It’s going very well in that area, so the owner would like to expand on this project.”
Gusev said the rent for a two-bedroom apartment at Park West is $1,250 a month.
Some residents who spoke at the public hearing before the P and Z board said they were worried about the loss of green space if the additional apartments were developed, but Gusev said G’Sell will provide landscaping and buffers according to county standards.
Dede Remspecher of Imperial also questioned the need for more apartments in the area.
“As everybody knows, Imperial is loaded with apartments. We’ve got Lakewood Landing. They’re now at capacity. We’ve got apartments on Terry Lane. We’ve got apartments on Windsor Harbor. We’ve got Park West Apartments. We’ve got apartments up on the trails off of Miller Road. Enough with the apartments already.”
Karin Althage of Imperial said she feared that bringing in renters would mean an uptick in crime.
“I came from the north area to get away from it. It’s been great for 20 or 25 years. And now, all of a sudden, everything is blowing up. People are getting robbed. We had our first car stolen. This used to be a beautiful country type of area. And they’re just making it a city. And that’s not what the majority of people living in Imperial bought for.”
Planning commissioner Jessie Scherrer, who cast one of the two dissenting votes after the public hearing, said he, too, had concerns about the loss of the vacant, wooded area.
“In a different setting, where we’re not having huge concrete slabs all over this development, there could be a different angle on that. But, you know, there has to be a balance between green space and the concrete jungle, and I think adding this just makes more concrete jungle.”
Planning commissioner Johnathan Sparks also voted against recommending the rezoning.
Planning commissioner Greg Bowers disagreed.
“I see this as a piece of property that is locked commercially all the way around it. I don’t know what you could do to keep it green space. It’s a commercial piece of property. You’re going to put in a strip mall, parking lots, or something like that. I think it’s going to be an enhancement to the area.”
Some council members who voted for the rezoning said they did so even though they had questions about it.
“I have serious concerns about the density of this project,” said Charles Groeteke (District 4, Barnhart), during a debate on the issue at the July 24 meeting.
Councilman Brian Haskins (District 1, High Ridge) took the opposite view.
“There are people on this panel who are concerned about any density or any apartments. It’s amazing to me that we have had such little development in this county over the last 10 years, and then when we have a chance for a few more apartments, or a few more houses, it’s an absolute stranglehold,” he said.
Haskins said the Sugar Creek Apartments development in his district generates more tax revenue than box stores.
“There will be those who vote against any density or any apartments, and we’re losing out.” he said. “People want to live in apartments and in houses on small lots. That’s just the way it is.”
Councilman Bob Tullock (District 7, House Springs) responded.
“I understand the reason and need for development. My main concern is that we’re not addressing infrastructure,” he said. “We expand, expand, expand without the infrastructure to support it. I just wanted to get that on the record.”
Haskins was absent for the final vote on Aug. 14.
Shannon Otto (District 3, Arnold) cast the sole dissenting vote.
She refused to comment about how she voted. Asked why she didn’t feel the need to explain her vote to her constituents, she said residents who called her about the issue know why she voted the way she did. Pressed that residents who didn’t call her might want to know, she said she had no comment.