“Magnolia Square” To Replace St. Aloysius
Alderman Joe Vollmer on Friday introduced Board Bill 361 for first reading before the St. Louis Board of Alderman. It seems the Planning Commission gave approval to the “sketch plan” on December 7, 2005 with three conditions.
The first condition is a routine easement document. Second is the Planning Commission wants the developer to “explore the possibility of increasing the proposed 10′-long front yard setbacks.” The third items is for them to “explore ways to redesign the site’s Pearl Ave. blockface so as to enhance the vista (view corridor) of the site from Magnolia Ave. looking westward.”
The documents indicate the developer will ask for 10-year property tax abatement but at this time Alderman Vollmer has not yet introduced such legislation. The full bill is available for download which includes drawings and floor plans of the proposed construction. It is a 34 page, 12mb PDF document. Click here to view the full bill as introduced by Alderman Vollmer on Friday.
County-only Reliance Bank is listed as doing the financing for this project. The contact person is Kent Steinbrueck. I’ve already left Mr. Steinbrueck a voice message indicating my disappointment that his bank is financing a project that will destroy a small part of our history and put very suburban looking homes in its place. The bank’s phone number is (314) 842-3979 (you can use the directory to leave a voice mail), their fax number is (314) 842-3974 and finally their street address is 5401 S. Lindbergh Blvd St. Louis, MO 63123.
We can be pro-development and save these great buildings and setting for future generations to enjoy. The elected officials need to wake up and realize this or they may just find themselves joining Tom Bauer as an ex-alderman.
– Steve
Why would they want to increase the front yards? What is the purpose of having larger front yards? That has to be one of the most anti-urban ideas to put forward. Do they not realize that St. Louis is a city?
This is what happens when your city lacks architectural review or form-based zoning (instead use-based). Our antiquated planning process makes sure uses are segregated and setbacks large, but doesn’t care about actual forms, elevations or urban site planning (maximum lot size/setbacks/parking requirements, instead of a suburban minimum as in our codes).
But here’s the hypocrisy. Our City’s boards will enforce the ridiculous minimum front yard setback of the single-family zoning of this block that pre-dates such zoning, but won’t enforce the preservation review process that demands any structure of high merit to show it can’t be saved or adaptively reused?!
As the oldest parish west of Kingshighway, and collectively shared in the minds of generations around it as a social center with clear identity, you cannot argue with a straight face that this “town square” block doesn’t have any merit. After all, if town squares and their collection of structures don’t have historical merit, then no single structure can arguably ever have merit, and that’s a slippery slope indeed.
There is room for compromise, and it’s not just making the homes prettier from the Magnolia vista. Clearly, a priest just lived in the rectory. All of the buildings were recently used. Clearing only the western back of the block would provide land for new homes, even detached, if ultimately desired, but on narrower lots, with very little setbacks.
The developer has already shown that the team can offer multiple models, and even work-live units. The development team should only seek to build there most urban models/units on this location, and if they’re not willing to take on rehab of the convent and rectory, or the more tricky conversion of the church, then they need to find themselves a partner or buyer for the eastern end of their block they now own.