Kirkwood council rejects Greenbrier Hills site amendment after neighbors cite pickleball noise and property impacts

KIRKWOOD, Mo. — The Kirkwood City Council on Thursday rejected a substitute resolution that would have approved a major site-plan partial amendment for the Greenbrier Hills Country Club, leaving in place Planning & Zoning’s earlier recommendation against the changes.

The substitute resolution (listed in the meeting as substitute Resolution 29‑20‑25) would have incorporated an updated landscaping plan and made additional Norway spruce plantings required along the south side of the pickleball courts at 12665 Big Bend Boulevard. Council members voted the measure down after an extended public-comment period in which nearby residents cited noise, health effects and property-value declines.

The issue matters locally because the courts already exist, and neighbors and the Planning & Zoning Commission (PNZ) had opposed the amendment. Council member Jack Sedick, who said he followed the matter from the beginning, described the vote as weighing the daily effect on residents who live adjacent to the courts. "For me, this is about the residents who live around the pickleball courts, who day in and day out, 7 days a week, will have to endure those having those courts as an unrelenting neighbor," Sedick said during debate.

Nearly a half-dozen residents spoke during public comment. Julie Missy, a nearby resident, read testimony from people living near pickleball courts elsewhere and said, "We hear the ball hit the paddle from inside our homes all day long, 8AM to 08:30PM." Kathy Converse, another neighbor, told the council that "the Kirkwood's own fence code does not permit a 15 foot solid fence around any structure" and urged councilors to "choose to protect the well-being of Kirkwood citizens and property and vote no on this proposal." Several residents said attempts to sell homes near pickleball courts had resulted in either buyers declining or lower sale prices.

Representing Greenbrier, attorney John Nations said the club sought council approval and asked for "favorable consideration" of the partial site-plan amendment. Kevin Keating, who identified himself as a Greenbrier member, said the club had conducted two sound tests and that prior abatement efforts "did not pass," but added that "this additional 5 feet right above the existing fence might just be the final step that would be needed to meet the requirements of the sound study." Keating asked the council to approve the additional fencing so the club could conduct a final sound study.

City staff produced and discussed a substitute that tied approval to an updated landscape plan. A staff speaker identified as Jonathan explained that the city forester had inspected recent plantings and that some Norway spruce had been installed beyond what the original plan required. Jonathan said the forester's review showed the new spruce, if required by the approved plan, "would provide a continuous screen to the south." The substitute resolution would have, in effect, made those additional spruce plantings required.

Council debate referred to prior actions: PNZ did not recommend approval when the amendment first came before it last summer, several council members said, and one councilor recounted that Greenbrier had previously asked to table a public hearing before later filing suit against the city. During discussion, a council member noted that an earlier resolution associated with the original court approvals (identified in the staff packet as Resolution 3‑20‑23a) included hours restrictions: play was limited to 8 a.m. to sunset and no lights were allowed.

After debate, the council took a roll-call vote on the substitute resolution. The roll call recorded the following votes: Mayor Gibbons — yes; Council member Jack Saddick — no; Council member Lizzo — yes; Council member McLean — yes; Council member Reinecker — no; Council member Schaeffer — no; Council member Zimmer — no. With the minority of votes in favor, the substitute resolution failed.

The failed substitute would have required the updated landscaping plan (original landscape plan filed 12/20/2022) and made certain spruce plantings mandatory; it would also have allowed the club to attempt an additional sound study after the added planting and fence extension. With the substitute defeated, no new site-plan amendment was approved by the council at the meeting.