South St. Louis County News

St. Louis Call Newspapers

South St. Louis County News

St. Louis Call Newspapers

South St. Louis County News

St. Louis Call Newspapers

Crestwood takes initial step toward redevelopment of Watson, Grant site

Crestwood takes initial step toward redevelopment of Watson, Grant site

By MIKE ANTHONY

Executive Editor

The first step toward the redevelopment of the southeast corner of Watson and Grant roads recently was taken by the Crestwood Board of Aldermen.

The Board of Aldermen voted 5-0 with two abstentions and one alderman absent to adopt an ordinance authorizing an agreement with Peckham, Guyton, Albers & Viets to conduct a blight analysis of the nearly 19-acre Hillside Village site at a cost not to ex-ceed $5,000.

Voting to approve the ordinance were Ward 1 Alderman Richard LaBore, Ward 2 Alderman Tim Trueblood, Ward 3 Alderman Bernie Alexander, Ward 4 Alderman Pat Duwe and Ward 4 Alderman Tom Fagan. Ward 2 Alderman Gary Vincent and Ward 3 Alderman Don Maddox abstained, while Ward 1 Alderman Richard Breeding was absent.

Mills Properties is proposing to redevelop the site as Boulder Springs at Crestwood – similar to the Boulder Springs at Maryland Heights project that Mills completed in 2000 at Interstate 270 and Page Avenue. Mills Prop-erties is proposing a $45 million development that would include about 240 luxury apartment units and 26 luxury condominiums. The one- and two-story condos would use large amounts of brick and stone detailing and sell for about $300,000 to $350,000.

The site is comprised of two parcels. The larger of the two parcels contains Value City and is owned by Joe Gras-so, while the smaller parcel contains the Creston Center and is owned by Crest Development.

Ken Boegeman of Crest Development repeatedly has asked that the Creston Center site be excluded from the proposed redevelopment. Boegeman has said his property is not for sale and questioned the long-term value to the city by redeveloping the site. Crest Development, he continued, is spending $150,000 to $200,000 to renovate the Creston Center.

However, aldermen voted Jan. 28 to keep the Creston Center within the redevelopment area and to meet with Bruce Mills to discuss his proposal further.

Mills told the board Feb. 11 that leaving the Creston Center next to his proposed development is out of the question.

In a recent letter to Mills, Boegeman wrote that he is willing “to make reasonable architectural modifications to our plans in order to tie our design styling into that of your proposed project.”

Aldermen voted last spring to issue a request for proposals to redevelop the site, which is comprised the two parcels containing 18.79 acres in the area of the city annexed in 1997. Two proposals were received – one from the Jones Co. and one from Mills Properties Inc. In November, the Jones Co. withdrew its proposal.

In a memorandum to the board, City Administrator Don Greer noted that city staff has indicated the most probable combination of assistance for the project is a Tax-Increment Financing District and a Community Improvement District.

During the Feb. 25 meeting, in response to a question from Maddox, Greer said, “The blighting analysis really is saying this qualifies to allow us to move forward with the tax-increment financing district. Tax-increment fi-nancing sets a base, the increment of any development is what goes to pay off whatever assistance is used for whatever period of time …”

Maddox said, “… I understand that. What I’m really trying to drive at is how does the blighting analysis affect the negotiations between owners and the developer? How does that affect the negotiations between owners of the properties and the developer?”

City Attorney Rob Golterman said, “It does not have a direct effect, as such. What it will signify is that, depending on what the blighting analysis reveals and then de-pending on what the board does in terms of establishing a redevelopment area and sending a redevelopment plan to the TIF Commission, it sends a signal that a development may go forward on that property. And any development on that property is going to require acquisition of land or some agreement. So, while there’s not a direct relationship or direct effect on the rights between the land owners and the developer, certainly there is an indirect effect if by perception only that the city may be going forward with a redevelopment of that property.”

Maddox said, “See, what I’m concerned about is traditionally people have the use of their property as long as that property, that use doesn’t infringe on their neighbors. And what I’m driving at is does proceeding with this blighting analysis essentially give the developer who has no ownership right or presence at this time the position of saying to the other owners or to the real owners or to the existing owners: ‘I have you by the throat. You have to deal with me.”’

Greer said, “There is a set of specific conditions that have to exist and those conditions exist or they don’t exist. I don’t know that it postures a person who might be trying to acquire the property any stronger in terms of any potential future condemnation. I think that the city attorney’s better qualified to answer that, but certainly from a negotiating standpoint, I don’t see that it creates any leverage one way or another. The criteria are set. It either fits or it doesn’t fit. And it fits or it doesn’t fit whether or not we do the analysis.

“If we are to move forward with what we have talked about, then the analysis needs to be done. But that doesn’t have any effect on the conditions that are on that site today. Is that closer? I think I know where you’re going. You don’t want to posture the city in a place where we are giving leverage to one party or another if we get to that point. I don’t believe that doing a blight analysis puts us in that position other than to say that we are moving forward and we are willing to consider tax-increment financing as part of redevelopment.

“So to that extent, moving forward, but I don’t know we’ve leveraged one party against another. The conditions that would qualify or not qualify that site exist already and those would come out in any kind of an appraisal that was done if the city wasn’t involved in this and there was someone trying to purchase the property,” Greer said.

Golterman said, “… I think that the use of the phrase blight analysis may be somewhat misleading. Basically, before a municipality can look at a redevelopment plan that would include tax-increment financing, the redevelopment area or the defined area must fall within one of the three provisions in the state statute. It’s either a blighted area, a conservation area or an economic development area and the state statute sets out the criteria for that. That’s why we hire an independent consultant to make that determination and then that all comes back to the board before anything else is acted upon. But this is a necessary and legally required first step to moving anywhere.”

In response to a question from Trueblood about how long the blight analysis would take, Golterman said 30 days.

Trueblood also asked about the contract, “… It’s completely possible, if I understand this properly, that after 30 days of examining this, PGAV may come back to us and say there’s no way we can find a financial way that there is assistance possible to have this developed. Is that correct? Is that what we’re stating here that it’s possible since the words evaluation for TIF eligibility may imply they come back here and say: ‘Hey, it’s not eligible?’ That is distinctly possible.”

Golterman said, “Yes, it is.”

Trueblood said, “It’s not a closed case, that boom, once they start the process this area is automatically going to be eligible for the TIF …”

Trueblood later asked, “… This may not be a fair question for you, Mr. Golterman, but is their final analysis, in your opinion, something that should be able to hold up in a court of law if it’s contested?”

Golterman said, “Well, if John Brancaglione (of PGAV) were here, he would tell that he has been in a position where he has had to defend his analysis in court in prior situations. So, I don’t think he is going to come to a conclusion that he doesn’t feel can be defended under the law …”

Mayor Jim Robertson said, “I might add that, Alderman Trueblood, in a shorter form: If their conclusion is not defensible in a court of law, we won’t be getting what we’re paying for and I don’t anticipate that will happen.”

The board’s action also authorized city officials to negotiate a preliminary funding agreement between Mills Prop-erties and the city for consideration by aldermen at the March 11 meeting.

More to Discover