After winding itself through the approval process three times, the Council finally offered first reading approval to Pitman Place, the 60-apartment mixed-use project proposed for the former Commerce Bank site at 300 N. Kirkwood Road, at their November 20th meeting.
The Kirkwood City Council was supposed to issue its verdict on the project in early October, but instead of approving the zoning-compliant project, the Council and developer instead agreed on an alternative: The developer would pull the proposal just ahead of the vote, and completely restart the approval process, beginning with a Planning & Zoning hearing on October 15th.
In exchange, the Council agreed to approve a zoning code change that would allow residential usage on the first floor of the development, which is currently banned by the zoning code. This would yield a design (Concept P) that the Council preferred aesthetically, while the Developer gets a more lucrative project out of the deal. What I’m most excited about is that this compromise will yield bigger apartments more suitable for families.
The previous iteration of the project featured:
- 27 – 1 bed/1 bath apartments
- 27 – 2 bed/2 bath apartments
- 6 – 3 bed/2 bath apartments
The new plans call for:
- 23 – 1 bed apartments
- 24 – 2 bed apartments
- 13 – 3 bed apartments
That means this one change will contribute a net increase of 11 bedrooms for the building overall. This iteration of the project also features a couple of hundred square feet of extra retail space over the original, a slightly smaller “clubhouse”, and six fewer parking spaces (it is still in compliance with the overall minimums).
The developer also proposed other features to gesture the property’s history as the historic Pitman School, including erecting a plaque next to the school’s old fence that still exists at the rear of the property and naming the development after the school itself.
A Quick Note on the Zoning Changes
Kirkwood’s zoning code requires developments along Downtown Kirkwood’s main streets (mostly Kirkwood Rd, Monroe, Argonne, Jefferson, and Adams) to be mixed-use with commercial space on the ground floor. The idea behind this requirement is that such a rule will yield a more active street front and a more walkable Downtown.
While that’s a laudable goal, such a strict mandate is ultimately misguided and counterproductive, and I’m glad to see it go. The thing is, developers are already incentivized to include ground-floor retail where it makes sense. Adding rental income from retail tenants diversifies your income streams thus making the property more financially resilient. If developers can make it work, they will.
But in other cases, such as this one, a bunch of ground-floor retail doesn’t make sense, either due to the exorbitant parking requirements that come with retail (especially restaurants) or simply because the foot traffic isn’t there. In these cases the developer is forced to include stuff that either makes no revenue (like “clubhouses” or gyms for the residents), or tiny retail spaces, which bring in very little. If one fourth of your building costs you more money, the remaining housing part of the building has to be more expensive in order to ensure the developer breaks even. If it makes more sense to put homes on the first floor, we should cut the red tape and let people do it. We’ll get more homes, larger homes, and more affordable homes if we do.
How We Got Here
The proposal originally called for 60 apartments and retail space, and —because it fits within the city’s zoning code— the Council had little legal room to block it. Still, both the Council and the public were unenthused by the design. Early renderings drew sharp criticism for being flat, bulky, and uninspired. In response, the developer, TriStar Properties, and their partners Stock & Associates, have returned with two new facade options. Here’s a quick reminder of what the original plans called for:
Having received negative feedback on this design from the Council and the public, Stock revised their plans and presented two alternatives, both of which swapped out the boxy facade for a gabled approach. Beyond the superficial aesthetic changes, the first option remained essentially unchanged from the original zoning-compliant plans.
The alternative design (previously named “Concept 2”, now named “Concept P”) featured changes along the Adams facade: the inclusion of balconies and five direct-entrance apartments, both of which I think improve the overall project.
Balconies may add more articulation to the facade, but they won’t add much “activity” since they’ll rarely be used by the tenants, mostly because they’d be both small and noisy.
Thanks for the info! It bugs me that they are nitpicking over aesthetics. Yeah the boxy look was a little Soviet, but I don’t think the role of the city council should center on how a project appeals to their eyes but rather on how it fits within the city’s codes and ordinances.
Completely agree. Especially since there’s already ARB review! There are policy levers that the Council could pull (like single-stair) to make the more fine-grained development they crave economical, but they don’t seem to be interested in pulling them
I for one, was looking forward to more usable retail in Kirkwood north of Adams. When are we going to get away from this area of Kirkwood being physical bank locations that no one uses anymore, and gas stations? Of course there’s no foot traffic, someone needs to be the first to make people have a reason to walk there.
Completely agree. A 2,100 sqft space and a 894 sqft space aren’t nothing though, so hopefully you get something decent here! What kind of retail would you most like to see up that way? I think a bookstore would be nice, but I know they rarely turn a profit!
[…] Bemiston Place Apartments in Clayton was cited as a reference point by TriStar Properties in their Commerce Bank / Pitman Place proposal, specifically with regard to the ground-floor private entrances featured in some of the apartments. […]