Housing Reform on the Horizon?

Over a year after Kirkwood published its Attainable Housing Study, the city took its first cautious steps toward implementing some of its recommended solutions at last Thursday’s City Council Work Session. But as Director of Planning Jonathan Raiche began presenting the study’s findings, some council members appeared skeptical of its underlying premise.

Council Member Jaksetic, for instance, questioned the urgency of the issue, asking: If 82% of our residents aren’t cost-burdened by housing—spending less than 30% of their income on rent or mortgages—isn’t that pretty good? Raiche responded that, ideally, no households in Kirkwood would be cost-burdened. Then, he began outlining how the city might approach that ideal.

The Planning Department’s Preferred Solutions

Given the time constraints of the work session format (and perhaps some warranted antipathy towards a few of the study’s more questionable recommendations) Raiche chose to focus the council’s attention on his ten favorite of the Study’s 19 total solutions:

Accessory Dwelling Units

• Waive FAR regulations for existing property owners who fulfill lot coverage requirements
• Create a page on the City’s website that explains the steps toward adding an addition or ADU to an existing property, encouraging home renovations and additions as opposed to relocating
• Allow ADUs on lots of 10,000 square feet or more
• Remove the additional parking-spot requirement for ADUs if the property already has at  least two off-street parking spots
• Reduce setback requirements for ADUs

Improve Certainty for Landlords and Renters Alike

• Evaluate and revise policies that would encourage more landlords to accept Housing Vouchers in the City
• Offer HomeScreen or another similar tenant screening program via the City website to encourage high-quality rentals and long-term tenants in the City

Start a Community Land Trust

• Support the establishment of a Community Land Trust Commission with representation from the City of Kirkwood, potential partnering organizations, and interested area residents. Encourage residents to contribute their real estate (or sell for a discount) to the Community Land Trust

Support Market Rate Housing Development

• Work with current property owners in Meacham Park to facilitate new housing development on vacant land
• Market key development sites in Downtown Kirkwood to facilitate new multi-family development with a mix of unit sizes and price points

Raiche’s preferred prioritization of the Study’s solutions largely align with my own. In the analysis I published when the Study was released, I classified each of its 19 recommendations as either:

• “Good” (7 of the 19 total recommendations): positive changes that I thought could feasibly be enacted
• “Good if we can get them done” (3): positive changes that I thought would be difficult to get enacted
• “Fine” (7): positive tweaks that are unlikely to have a significant impact on affordability
• or “Ugly” (2): solutions that I worry would actually make the problem worse.

Of Raiche’s top 10 solutions, four fell into the “good” category, one into “good if we can get it done”, and five as “fine”. Neither of the two “ugly” recommendations that I was worried about made the cut. So I think the choices made here were smart.

A Note on Affordability Requirements

One key takeaway from the meeting was Planning Director Jonathan Raiche’s skepticism about Kirkwood’s capacity to administer income-restricted housing. When Council Member Jaksetic asked whether the city could allow developers more zoning flexibility in exchange for setting aside 10% of units for low-income residents, Raiche expressed concerns. He explained that monitoring compliance with affordability requirements would be labor-intensive and that the city’s current staff lacks the resources for such oversight.

Raiche’s restraint in avoiding this type of policy seems as prudent as the recommendations he did endorse. Some states, like New York, allow municipalities to establish custom affordability requirements and provide state resources to help enforce them. Missouri, however, is not one of those states, and Kirkwood lacks the resources to manage a program like this independently.

That said, affordable housing bonuses could still be useful—not for creating entirely new programs, but for encouraging developers to utilize existing national programs like Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and Project-Based Vouchers (PBVs). These programs are already managed by the state and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), so they wouldn’t require additional local resources.

However, there’s a catch: LIHTC and PBV projects typically avoid expensive neighborhoods with restrictive zoning because HUD aims to maximize affordable unit production. This challenge is evident in the ongoing effort to redevelop Peace United Church of Christ in Webster into affordable housing. The project’s high costs would require a disproportionate amount of the state’s limited resources, making it difficult to secure tax credits.

To help bridge the gap, Kirkwood could allow LIHTC or PBV-funded projects to build at higher densities than what’s currently permitted for market-rate developments. This approach could make such projects financially viable. For example, an asset-rich but cash-poor Kirkwood church with surplus land might find that developing affordable housing aligns with both its mission and financial needs. How likely is that likely scenario? I’m not sure, but it’s probably the most realistic avenue for expanding subsidized housing in Kirkwood.

The Council’s Objections

While Raiche’s measured approach is encouraging, the political reality of implementing these ideas remains daunting. The city council elected in spring 2024 is notably more skeptical of supply-side solutions to housing affordability, and many “good” recommendations now fall under the “good if we can get them done” category. This skepticism was evident in the questions and objections raised during the session.

CM Jaksetic questioned who these recommendations were even trying to help; that it didn’t sound like the answer was Kirkwood’s current homeowners. Raiche told the council that the most cost-burdened demographic in the city is seniors (I’d add that many current residents have expressed would like for their adult children to be able to start a family in Kirkwood, but current prices make that all but impossible).

CM Luetzow commented that a resident bought their house because they wanted single-family zoning and now it won’t be and added that she was also concerned about ADUs becoming short-term rentals. Raiche reminded her that an ADU requires that the owner live on the premises and that short-term rentals are regulated and require Council approval.

CM Schaefer asked if our infrastructure could handle additional people living in Kirkwood. City Administrator Hawes reminded him that we have about 2600 fewer people living in Kirkwood than we had in 1970.

CM Zimmer asked if real estate taxes going up as values increased, would that be a problem for the residents? Raiche told him there are programs to help homeowners pay their real estate taxes. I’ll add the County has implemented a senior property tax freeze offering protection from such a phenomenon to seniors living on fixed incomes. Additionally, the Hancock Amendment prevents the city’s total property tax revenue from increasing any more than inflation so folks should be pretty insulated on this front (although, the Hancock Amendment cap only applies to the city’s overall tax revenue so some property tax levies may increase by more than inflation in a given year, its just that those increases would have to be matched by decreased levies on other properties elsewhere within the city).

These questions and objections highlight the challenges of implementing even modest housing policy changes. For example, the council’s lukewarm support for downtown multi-family development—illustrated by their rejection of all six responses to the Jefferson parking lot RFP—suggests a tough road ahead.

And Yet!

Still, I remain hopeful that this moment presents an excellent opportunity to make some progress. This Council may be skeptical of taking off the zoning handcuffs and really letting Kirkwood’s economy rip, but I do think that, to a person, its a strong group of managers and business minds and I’d have to imagine that cutting some of the red tape, identifying efficiency improvements, and streamlining our process holds some appeal.

Small, incremental changes—like waiving redundant floor area ratio (FAR) regulations for homes that already meet lot coverage requirements or reclassifying ADUs from a special use to a permitted use—could yield significant benefits. Allowing planning staff to approve ADUs that comply with code, without requiring council approval, would save time, reduce hidden costs, and demonstrate the value of smart, pragmatic housing policies.

What’s Next

So where does all this leave us? Well, the council was given a couple of action-items at the end of the session. Raiche encouraged them to review the nine solutions he hadn’t presented to determine if they liked any of them any better and Mayor Gibbons instructed the council to email her their favorite recommendations. Most importantly, the ball is now unambiguously in the Council’s court. I’ll keep you posted if, and when, they decide to move forward.