Council sends 300 N. Kirkwood Road plan back to Planning & Zoning after public debate on design and scale

The council debated a proposed mixed‑use development for 300 North Kirkwood Road (the Commerce Bank site) and voted to send the developer’s application back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for revision to pursue an alternate plan (referred to at the meeting as “Option 2”) that could add First‑Floor residential and other design changes.

Developer Matt Siegel of TriStar Properties described design updates made since the 2023 approval, said the team sought to echo local landmarks — "the stone all that stone is reminiscent of the First Presbyterian Church's stone" — and offered concessions including off‑site tree plantings for the adjacent homeowners association and a commemorative placard honoring Pittman School. Siegel also said the developer would consider replacing an on‑site gym with retail that would generate less traffic pressure if council preferred.

Public comment was mixed. Supporters including Tom Tachick of Kirkwood for Everyone and resident Amy Nash said new rental units would increase housing choice and support downtown businesses. Opponents — including Victoria Bader and architect Gwen Wallman — described the building as "a nondescript box" and urged a design more consistent with Kirkwood's historic downtown scale and character. Gwen Wallman also urged council to vote against the design as submitted.

Council discussion emphasized balancing downtown housing needs with design and pedestrian safety. Council members asked the developer to maintain sidewalk continuity on the site’s east boundary and negotiated additional landscaping and screening near the adjacent condo association. Jonathan Raish, planning staff, explained that if council wants First‑Floor residential on Adams Avenue, the application must be re‑submitted and a text amendment processed; the developer agreed to pursue that path if council directed it.

Action taken: by motion and voice/roll call, council directed staff to return the developer’s application to the Planning & Zoning Commission for the alternate Option 2 revisions and additional conditions (sidewalk, landscaped buffer, screening and ARB review). The motion passed on the council floor.

What it means: sending the plan back to Planning & Zoning obligates the developer to revise the filing and proceed through the commission and Architectural Review Board. The council did not approve a final site plan at the meeting; the developer and staff will undertake the next steps required by municipal code.

Speakers at the meeting included developer Matt Siegel, a series of neighborhood residents and representatives, and planning staff. The developer committed to working with the city and the homeowners association on screening and off‑site plantings and to coordinate with landmarks/historic review on a dedication to Pittman School.

Provenance: the discussion and vote on the development plan appears in the record under Resolution 89‑2025 and the associated public comments beginning in the public comment segment and the developer’s presentation. The council’s motion to return the application to Planning & Zoning was made and carried at the meeting.