|
Lots going on this week, but perhaps none bigger than the three public hearings on the rezoning of the intersection of Sarah Ave and N Kirkwood Rd at tonight's City Council meeting. The small, missing-middle condos this zoning change would allow would provide some of the most affordable homeownership opportunities in Kirkwood today. This thing really needs your support, so if you can, please show up at tonight's meeting and comment in support. If you can't make it, Kirkwood for Everyone is also working on a letter asking the Council to support the project. If you'd like to sign on, please email Ellen Wentz at gotakeahike2@gmail.com.
|
|
|
|
- Yesterday's P&Z agenda has a nice updates on several Kirkwood developments:
- The 60-apartment mixed-use Pittman Place development is "progressing in [its] building permit review" — Fingers crossed!
- The seven townhomes proposed for 507-509 S Holmes, right next to the Grant's Trail trailhead—formerly (still?) known as The Maje Residences—are under review — This is one of the only places you're allowed to build townhomes along the trail; it would be great if someone changed that! (lowkey, this 2024 article I just linked to which mentions everything from the Maje Residences to the Aria to my proposal for the old public works site is a banger)
- The developer behind the eight townhomes proposed for 430 S Clay a couple of years back has "decided to hire a different architect," — I'm just glad this thing is still in the works
- The 6-unit apartment building proposed under Kirkwood Missing Middle zoning code is under construction — Woo!
- The same P&Z agenda also mentions two other rather interesting items:
- There's a proposal to build a drone-delivery hive in the Walmart parking lot?! I guess the future really is here! I'm sure this thing will be controversial and I haven't thought about it too much, but it would seem to reduce delivery truck traffic on city streets so I guess mark me down as cautiously pro?
- There's a site plan for the Double Eagle proposal for the old public works site (you can check out a fancy new rendering of the project on pg. 45 of the agenda pdf). The project that also appears elsewhere on this week's calendar...
- Tonight's festivities kickoff with the City Council Work Session, the agenda of which, rather ominously, lists "Chapter 100 for Double Eagle" as its only public item. I'd attend this one, or at least watch the live stream if you can (the meeting starts at 3:30pm). What I suspect is happening is that Double Eagle is requesting some kind of tax incentive from the city and that they're trying to justify it by pointing to the environmental (pollution) remediation required at the long time industrial site (again, explained in the trailside development article I linked to above). I feel adamantly that the Council should deny this request. The project, conceived of as 100% residential with no retail/restaurant component, already has very limited tax revenue upside for the city since it will only be contributing property taxes and not sales taxes. The City cannot afford to throw away even more money at this thing, and it doesn't matter that the money they'd be throwing is tax revenue expected in the future rather than money currently sitting any the city's coffers. Money is money. If Double Eagle wants to walk away as a result, that's fine. We can get our $8 million for this thing every day of the week, and we could probably come up with something better, especially if we develop it in chunks (did I mention my trailside development article?)
- The minutes from the prior work session agenda also include some incredibly interesting items:
- On the stormwater ordinance: Some good news: "It was the consensus of the Council to approve the proposed changes of 500sqft to 750sqft," which would make ADUs, which have a maximum size of 750sqft, exempt; and some really bad news: "It was the consensus of the Council to approve the proposed change of 85% [maximum impervious surface] to 70% for multi-family developments." Multifamily developments currently has no maximum amount of allowable impervious surface, and if you think about essentially every infill development Downtown, essentially all of the surface is impervious. If you were to propose a new mixed-use building on one of the two city-owned Jefferson lots, what are you supposed to do? Add a front yard between the building and the sidewalk? This will single handedly halt multifamily residential development in Downtown Kirkwood and spike our progress on attainable housing. Is there an issue with flooding in Downtown Kirkwood I don't know about? I probably need to write about this separately, but the Council seems to have decided pervious parking lots could be used to get multifamly under the threshold, but that assumes all parking is surface parking lots since below grade parking would sit under an impervious building. I don't know when multifamily got added to this ordinance, but this would be a massive step back for affordability, walkability, sustainability, and economic development in Kirkwood.
- On architectural review: There's a note that reads, "Question was raised regarding single-stairwell allowance. It is not currently required locally or at the state level." I hope something was lost in the transcription because... of course single stair isn't required at the local level! We haven't yet even made it legal! Lots of other places have though.
- On the rezoning the area around Grant's Trail to allow something under light industrial: "Staff nonetheless recommends against rezoning future land use areas" (We can just do things. Don't make me link to the damn article again)
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's all for this week! I'll circle back to the Webster-Kirkwood Times when things settle down. The Farmers Market is still going with Tunes @ Ten on Saturday. Have a great weekend, everyone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
