Developer paves front yard for condo parking, hearing on the 6th
For years the large building at the corner of Halliday & Grand (map) was a trouble spot in the Tower Grove East neighborhood, the usual drug dealing and such. So it is no surprise that area residents are all glad a developer has converted the building into condos, but not all agree on the parking ‘solution.’ This story of parking has many issues and no obvious solution. St. Louis’ Board of Adjustment will try to make sense of it Wednesday (Meeting starts at 1:30pm, Room 208 City Hall).
The small front yard wasn’t exactly paradise but it got paved anyway. Some neighbors say the developer, on a weekend and without a proper permit, created a concrete parking lot for four cars. These neighbors want to see it removed. Other neighbors say they don’t care for the solution but they must accept it to get an entrance marker for their street, Halliday. More on the entry marker later.
According to city records, the building above was built in 1908. The developer has converted it into five condos. Ald. Conway says over the years many more units were in the building so five does not represent an increase in density. Four units will each get a space in the new parking area while one buyer will be without a space. But wait, there is more to the story.
In 1925 this building was built in the backyard of the one on Halliday. This handsome apartment building faces Grand. Also a large building containing 4 units, 3 on each of the upper floors and one “garden” unit in the basement. So on this one parcel we have a total of nine units and a grand total of four off-street parking spaces. Regular readers know me, I like density so the idea of nine units on a lot that is 55ft x 140ft doesn’t both me (roughly 50 units to the acre). The paved front yard, however, doesn’t sit well. More importantly, the pave it first and ask for permission later process really bothers me. But wait, I’m not done explaining the project.
You can sorta tell above but there is literally no extra room here at all. The alley is to the left and the front building can be seen in the right. They are very close together. How close? This close:
On the left the building facing Grand (and Tower Grove Park) and on the right the building facing Halliday. The entrance to the Grand building actually faces the back of the front building. Neighbors I spoke to are all happy to see the former problem properties being rehabbed, and all agree the developer has done an outstanding job. Some neighbors, however, wanted less density and wanted the rear building razed for parking for the front building. These buildings are zoned ‘E’ Multifamily Dwelling District while most of the block is single family homes, but we will get to zoning in a bit.
Across the alley to the north is yet another building being converted to condos as part of this same project.
This former police station that served as an office building for many years is also going residential. Paking for the nine units in this building will be in the basement. So back to the two buildings on the corner of Halliday and South Grand. Nine units, four off-street parking spaces. As rental units it might not be an issue but in today’s for-sale condo market the lack of a space might make for a hard sell. However, the buildings are only a short bike ride from many employment centers and are located on the popular #70 bus line.
In the process of creating the four off-street spaces two spaces were lost on the street, not exactly a huge gain and some say not worth all the concrete. The quality of the concrete work is also subject to some debate. I don’t like the way the apron extends past the curb line and into the gutter :
Water and debris will collect on the east side of this drive while I suspect water will be diverted into the street more than normal, possibly an issue come freezing weather. Halliday is one-way westbound toward Grand.
Support and opposition to this parking situation comes down to proximity. While you might think those closest to the paved yard opposite it you’d be mistaken. Those on the west end of the block nearest the new parking area seem to reluctantly approved. The alternatives, they say, could be more cars on their quiet one-way street. Also, they want their entrance marker at Grand. Although given the direction of the one-way it is more an exit marker.
Residents cite the example a few blocks north at Victor St. I was given a copy of a sketch from the Board of Public service which shows a similar marker. The main desire of the residents is to narrow the width of the street where it intersects Grand. The big difference between Halliday & Victor is that with Victor, the public sidewalk was actually moved to create a clear path out of the way of parked cars. With the paved front yard on Halliday, parked cars can potentially block the pathway of those using the public sidewalk.
I spoke with Ald. Conway who confirms he supports the paved parking for the developer. He also indicated he wanted support from area residents on the parking before giving them (aka funding) the entrance marker they desire.
The gated at Crittenden, two blocks south of Halliday, is also cited as an example. But here you can see the closed gate has prevented street cleaners from removing debris which now does a good job as a growing medium, blocking the sewer inlet. This gate should be unlocked and opened once a month to allow the street cleaners to do their job.
The city’s Board of Adjustment will take up this matter on their agenda on Wednesday. The meeting starts at 1:30pm in Room 208 of City Hall. As the agenda is not posted online, I do not know where this item stands on the list relative to others. Below is all that we know about the Board of Adjustment from the city’s website:
The Board of Adjustment was established to allow an appeal by any interested party aggrieved by the Building Commissioner’s denial of either a building or occupancy permit based on the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board is comprised of citizens appointed by the Mayor, and is empowered to sustain the decision of the Building Commissioner, amend the decision of the Building Commissioner, or overrule the decision of the Building Commissioner by declaring such decision an undue hardship, thereby granting a variance to the applicant.
The Board of Adjustment will look to our antique zoning code for answers. They may follow the zoning code strickly to the letter or grant a variance based on an “undue hardship.” Indeed, the developer may make the case that without some off-street parking the financial hardship to renovate the building(s) would be too much.
So what does the zoning indicate? As I indicated, the sites are in the E Multifamily Dwelling District classification:
26.36.100 Density of population.
A. Detached single-family dwellings shall have a lot area of not less than four thousand (4,000) square feet, except that lots of record prior to the effective date of Ordinance 45309 and new lots that equal the average density of the original platted parcels may be used for one (1) single-family dwelling, provided the yard regulations of this section are complied with.
B. Town houses and two-family dwellings shall have a lot area of not less than seven hundred fifty (750) square feet for each dwelling unit therein.
C. Conversion town house dwellings shall not be required to have a minimum lot area.
D. Multiple-family dwelling units shall have a lot area of not less than two hundred fifty (250) square feet for each dwelling unit therein.
The key section is letter ‘D’ above. However, both the front building and the back building have sufficient ground to meet the density requiement for the E Multifamily Dwelling District. This building and two adjacent single family homes are within the ‘E’ district which permits a high density (I’d love to see us get closer to this density).
But, in order to meet this density the development must meet the parking requirements of the district. Interestingly, the regulation says it is the same as district ‘D’. You go to district ‘D’ and it is the same as district ‘C’. Here is what the C Multifamily Dwelling District has to say on parking:
26.28.030 Parking regulations.
The parking standards in “A” Single-Family Dwelling District shall apply, except as modified by Section 26.28.010. (Ord. 62588 § 4 (part), 1992.)
26.28.040 Parking space.
Each new multiple-family dwelling shall provide parking space sufficient to accommodate one motor car for each one dwelling unit. Each rehabilitated or reconstructed dwelling shall provide parking space sufficient to accommodate three motor cars for each four dwelling units…No such parking space, including any interior aisle of any parking lot shall extend into any minimum required rear or side yard area. (Ord. 62588 § 4 (part), 1992.)
Well, the first thing I see is that 26.28.030 appears to conflict with 26.28.040. The former refers to ‘A’ while the latter spells out a requirement. Let’s assume for sake of argument that the latter is correct. In this case, a rehabbed building, the developer would need three spaces for each four units. If we argue the front building (with five units) is separate from the back building the required number of spaces would be four (another code indicates a round-up for fractions of spaces). If we say the front & back buildings are one with a total of nine units this means the required number of off-street parking spaces, per the 1947 code, is seven. If we go further still and combine the Halliday Building, the Grand building and the former Police Station with a combined total of 18 spaces then the total number of off-street spaces required is 14.
Below are is the overall requirements of off-street parking, speaking to the issue of combining as well as density and the front building line.
26.16.080 Off-street parking and loading requirements.
A. All hereafter erected buildings shall provide off-street parking and off-street loading facilities in accordance with district regulations. When provided as a combined facility serving two (2) or more buildings or occupancies, such parking facilities shall have an area not less than the total of the separate requirements of each building or occupancy served thereby…. Whenever the application of the district regulations results in the requirement of a fraction of a parking space, a whole parking space shall be provided for such fraction. Existing off-street parking or loading facilities shall not hereafter be reduced in size below the requirements of the applicable district regulations.
B. Off-street parking and loading facilities shall not be required of any existing structure or occupancy. No existing structure shall be hereafter used in a manner which will increase the number of off-street parking or loading spaces required under the applicable district regulations, unless space be provided equal to the net increase in such required facilities resulting from alteration, conversion, change in use or increase in total dwelling units.
C. 1. Off-street parking or off-street loading areas in any dwelling district shall not extend beyond the building line or into the front yard area…
The last line is pretty clear, parking areas “shall not extend beyond the building line or into the front yard area” which this clearly does. Again, we can argue a “hardship” in this case due to the existing site conditions. But in ‘B’ above we see the code does not require off-street parking for any existing use — our older buildings are granfathered in as non-conforming. Thus, the desire to have off-street parking is just that — it is not being mandated by the city.
For me this is not about what the residents of this block, the developer, the buyers, the alderman or even neighborhood want, this is a bigger city issue. All over this city we have buildings which, due to the lot size or perhaps the steep grades, the only non-hardship option for off-street parking would be in the front yard space. Do we want, in this city, to have paved front yards? I say no.
Back to this specific case the theory becomes muddy. What if I were the developer in this situation? Tearing down the 4-unit building at the rear for parking likely doesn’t make financial sense, it certainly isn’t justified from an urban, preservation or environmental perspective. The back building is clearly 4-units and no amount of reconfiguring would have made it good for less units. The front building is quite large and with less than five units the renovation costs may not be feasible. Selling condos without parking in neighborhoods that are not downtown or right on a transit station can be challenging to say the least. These buildings needed to be renovated and residential use makes the most sense but in our auto-centric society the storage of cars becomes the center of controversy.
I have a compromise solution that is far from ideal but possibly workable.
The developer should be allowed to keep the four spaces but the vast expanse of concrete must be removed and redone. I suggest leaving the sidewalk as normal concrete but that the apron and parking area should be a tinted and/or stamped concrete so they are clearly different than the public sidewalk. The apron also needs to be redone so as to not block the water flow down the gutter line. Ideally the parking portion would be constructed of some sort of pervious material such as pavers or blocks which permit grass to be planted. The latter might give the appearance of a lawn when empty (good) but could also look like people are parking on a lawn (not so good).
Related Links:
• Development website at TowerGroveLiving.com
• Ald. Stephen Conway, 8th ward
• Non-informative Board of Adjustment
• Tower Grove East neighborhood
UPDATE 6/8/2007 @ 8am
At the Board of Adjustment meeting held on the afternoon of the 6th many people spoke against allowing the parking to remain. Alderman Conway clarified something I had misunderstood — the residents didn’t want the monument entry — that was a $30,000 enticement to support this developer’s parking request. Tax dollars hard at work! Everyone except the alderman and developer, Vern Heyer, support having angled parking on one side of the street so that owners of the new condos can have on-street permit-only parking for their building.  The Board of Adjustment postponed a decision for a month so the parties can work out a deal. Their next meeting is July 11, 2007.
Don’t new curb cuts (a.k.a. the “new apron”) require city approval?! If permits were not pulled/approved, I’d vote for ripping it all out and starting over – asking forgiveness instead of permission is a classic developer ploy. A net gain of two spaces for something this ugly makes little sesne. And was angled parking considered?
I’m a resident of the block. Another complication, and a possible solution, that are over looked here:
We have 27 kids on this block, from newborns up through about 12 years old. Traffic speed is an issue, as is enforcement of the 1-way. We’ve seen residents cut in off of Grand in order to pull in at the pad on the end of the block. Reducing the size of the exit lane is something we’re hoping would fix this problem, but as long as the pad is there we’re afraid it will continue to be a safety problem (especially since cars have to pull over the sidewalk to park).
Instead of taking out the public sidewalk and street trees, could this problem be solved more effectively by implementing angle-parking on one side of the street? That would remove the attractive nuisance of pulling in from Grand, and would provide spaces that are available during the day to the shop across the street. Increasing the number of multi-use spaces seems to make more sense than turning public spaces into (an insufficient number of) private spaces. I’m curious about your view on this.
Jim’s right that we need to make an example of this developer. The process must be followed, period. Chaos results otherwise. Rip it out and start over again. I think Steve and Mike have got the right idea on the ultimate solutions.
Now for the rant.
“I spoke with Ald. Conway who confirms he supports the paved parking for the developer. He also indicated he wanted support from area residents on the parking before giving them (aka funding) the entrance marker they desire.
In other words, quid pro quo: say what I want, and I’ll give you a bone. This is so par for the course in this town.
Perhaps, Mike, you should exchange your support of the parking area for some traffic enforcement. Over the course of the last 18 months, I’ve begged my alderman for traffic enforcement on our street–at least for the cars running the school bus stop sign, if not the speeders and right-turn-on-red-without-a-stop (hopefully not over a pedestrian) drivers.
Let’s say we get Patterson an appointment to the Planning Commission so the rest of us can get some peace!
Requirements mandating parking? How about the developer provides free monthly metro passes instead? Say 10 years?
As Mike’s wife…I independently stand in complete agreement, frankly. All but one neighbor on our block is highly interested in angled parking on one side and parallel on the other, with some sort of compromise on the parking pad. Most of us have come to the point of telling the alderman “thanks but no thanks” to the “exit” monuments because we don’t like to bent over a barrel that way. What we want is safety, harmonious living with our neighbors, and the units to sell as quickly as possible so the developer moves on his merry way. Angled parking on one side, even on only the western half of the block, would deter both speeders and wrong way drivers. Then the little vanity monuments would frankly not be necessary (the moms on this block, if I dare speak for them for a moment, wanted monuments not because we think our block is somehow less without them–but because they would involve the narrowing of the street on the western end.
I’ll be there Wednesday.
Hey Steve – your Realtor® biases are showing through. The citizens of St. Louis have absolutely no duty to the new buyers to make them whole if they bought into an illegal situation: “To complicate matters some buyers have already moved in and are using their spaces. Removing the parking may create legal issues between buyers and the developer.” If the buyers aren’t happy, let them sue the developer and/or have their title company handle it. Why should the rest of the neighborhood be saddled with this?! Allowing this to continue just creates another little precedent that most city rules are merely just suggestions if you know the right people and/or are adept at “playing the game” . . .
What is interesting is that no one has made mention of the hoops and hurdles the developer had to go thru to make sure the building retained it’s historic charm. Those windows above the parking lots, for instance.
Nor are any of the postings commenting on how neglected those buildings were and how trashy the area was before it was reconditioned.
Of course, this doesn’t excuse pouring pads and asking for forgiveness later, if this is in fact what was done. But this particular problem is not, I repeat, not just a developer issue. Many Many property owners do the exact same thing…simply because they don’t want to do the permits, which will raise their rates, yada, yada.
How many of us know someone that has done a major project to their home, only to ask if they pulled permits, and get a ‘no’. The whole system needs revamping, and the inspectors office needs more staff as well to keep up.
There’s a big difference between people who are “in the business” (developers, architects, Realtors®, contractors, etc.) and the average home owner. The professionals know (or should know) what’s expected or what to ask and where to go to get the answers. We’re being paid, hopefully well, for our expertise. The average home owner, on the other hand, can often, rightfully, be clueless about how things work, both on the permitting side and on the design side – many of them have valid reasons for asking for forgiveness, professionals rarely do.
As for the developer having to jump through “hoops and hurdles” – that’s part of the process of making their living. Development is profitable because you buy low and (hopefully) sell high. (And if it were “easy”, more people would be doing it, successfully.) Choosing or having to install better windows costs more initially but makes the project more attractive and likely allows the developer to charge higher prices. And as any Realtor® will attest, first impressions play a big role in most buyers’ decision to put in a contract or to move on. Yes, these buildings were trashy and neglected – that’s why they were affordable in the first place. But they weren’t any trashier or neglected than many, many other buildings in the city, and here, they benefit from being in an appreciating area across from a major park and close to a trendy retail area (location, location, location). It’s the market at work – the time is right, the numbers add up, and the developer is doing his or her thing because that’s how they make money – the hoops and hurdles are just a part of the package!
I guess my big problem is that there’s an assumption that just because the parking’s built, we need to find a way to let it stay, that the rest of the block needs to suffer to help the success of a redevelopment project. I’m guessing that there’s little or no on-street parking here because few of the other properties on the block have (or can’t or choose not to use their) off-street parking. Parking was tight when this was an “affordable” apartment house. It was tight when the contractor had their people working on the project. It will continue to be tight – it’s a dense block in an urban area! Just because this is “newly renovated” and “a big improvement” doesn’t make it some way special or exempt from the city’s zoning regulations – paving front or side yards has a HUGE visual impact on our established neighborhoods. Yes, designated parking can make or break the sale of a condo, and yes, designated parking (as a part of the package) allows the developer to sell their units for higher prices. Fine. Do it. Just don’t do it at the expense of what makes this neighborhood attractive in the first place! Figure out how to put it in the basement or on the first floor or in the back yard. Or to put it in professional terms, if parking’s a part of your pro forma, do your due dilligence!
Desperate people do desperate things. Leadership and the public here are so grateful for capital investment/improvements that almost anything goes. This what happens when a city-region like StL lowers its standards due to the problems created by years of mismanagement and depopulation. Look around you… the whole region is becoming strip malls, parking lots, highways, etc. The attractive concepts and lifestyles of “livable communities” are being brushed aside in order to support auto-dependency. StL is rapidly becoming a region with a mindset and ciitzentry full of “car-holics”… shameful.
A few quick points:
1. Here we have a case where there are 9 units and 4 provided off-street spaces. Seems like a perfect scenario for the city to place a value on providing transportation for these 5 missing spaces and collect from development fees that could then be applied toward transportation improvements in the area such a structured parking, new and improved parking meters, or improvements to the Grand bus line.
2. Looking at the Google aerial, at Victor it appears that the entrance way creates the opportunity for on-street perpendicular parking. Could a similar thing happen here, with the narrowed entrance off of Grand used to create four or 5 on-street space perpendicular parking spaces? Looking at Victor, it appears that to get the perpendicular spaces half of the length needed comes from the street (through the bulb out at grand) and half comes from jogging the sidewalk back. This would allow fewer sidewalk/ parked car conflicts and still allow for a small green space between the sidewalk and the building.
And the above is an option that would allow the developer to get what he wants (and maybe an extra space), the Alderman to get what it wants, and the residents to get what they want. Far better in my opinion (if feasible) than forcing the neighborhood to swallow what is a pretty half-@ssed solution to get what they want.
The paving of the front yard of 3557-79 Halliday is not the solution for the development’s parking issues.
1) Angled parking on the side of the street adjacent to the development is the best solution because:
• The street is as wide as 3500 Victor where they have been angle parking on one side for years. The residents have raised children and have stated that it is safe and the block is very quiet.
• Angled parking would allow for the four parking spaces the developer states he must have in front of his development. The block wants to work with the developer they would also be willing to commit four parking spaces to 3557-59 Halliday for the new owners sole use with permit hangers in those cars that would then be allowed to park there.
• Angled parking would create more parking spaces for all concerned on the block thus alleviating the loss of the three spaces in front of 3557-59 Halliday to the other residents of the block. That is a 33% increase in parking on that side of the block.
• Angled parking would prohibit the residents of 3557-59 from turning off South Grand onto Halliday heading the wrong way on a one way street, which they have been doing, and would therefore insure the safety of all residents on the street.
2) When Mr. Heyer paved the front yard he forgot a few things:
• All the downspouts on this very large set of buildings were not tied into the sewer but have corrugated black hosing pouring water out onto this parking pad and the sidewalks – another violation of building codes.
• Mr. Heyer is going after historic tax credits, which I am sure he needs. When a similar plan was brought up in Lafayette Square by a developer their paving plans were dropped when the developer was told that he would be denied historic tax credits if he paved a side yard for parking facing the park.
3) No one denies that the improvements on the buildings are long overdue. However the two buildings 3557-59 Halliday and 2816 South Grand Blvd have never been up for sale for months at a time but have sold so quickly that the neighborhood could not buy them through our Housing Corporation. That tells you that this is very desirable property. Three units out of 9 have already sold.
4) The paving of a front yard to accommodate a parking pad is a very dangerous precedent to set. Who will be the next developer to want to do this in your neighborhood?
The Tower Grove East Neighborhood Association and the block of 3500 Halliday is offering a very sound solution for this parking situation which would provide the developer with the parking he needs and keep one of the most intact historic blocks in Tower Grove East intact – This is a “win-win†solution.
I know this isn’t really related to this article, but that in today’s journal there is a front page picture of the new multipurpose room addition to a church. At first glance it looked like a new strip mall box outlet.
Talk about bad design….I know there is not much one can do with a gym or mulitpurpose room, but……
Anyone know what happened?
Tonight we have a meeting with the TGENA board, the block captains, the alderman and the developer. I am hopeful we will come to a resolution. We have had verbal agreements from the developer to switch to the angled parking plan. I will let you know what happens, if anything.
If the alderman is in agreement (he skipped the meeting), we have a fix. The street dept ok’d diagonal parking, and the developer is ok with this plan. The concrete is supposed to come up, the sidewalk to remain where it is, and half the tree lawn will be ceded to the street to create a small bump-in for the parked cars (4). The street dept has actually approved diagonal parking on the north side only, all the way up the street, if we want to do that. But that’s an issue for later.
There is another meeting tonight, Wednesday June 27th, at 5:45 PM regarding the paved lawn at Halliday and Grand. The meeting is located on the illegal paved lawn itself.
The meeting notice letter from Alderman Steve Conway’s office was stuck in my door the evening of June 26th, less than 22 hours before the meeting start time.
The content of the letter is surprising for an issue that was supposed to have been resolved. It explains that there are two choices for residents of Halliday:
1. Stain the concrete muted red or beige. Keep sidewalk the same color and edge with brick strips: or
2. Vacate the street to put in (5) degree angled parking spaces. This would require encroaching on the curb lawn. It is not necessary for the whole street to go to 45 degree parking at this time. This also will require moving the fire hydrant ($10,000) and modifications to street monuments on Grand. Also, permission will be needed from the adjoining neighbor.
Alderman Conway sat through the board of adjustment meeting last month when at least 15 to 20 residents of the 3500 blocks of Halliday and Magnolia spoke against the paved lawn and asked that it be removed.
He also no doubt was informed of the results of the subsequent meeting, which Bridgett summarized in the previous post.
Based on the late notice of the meeting tonight, the fact that Alderman Conway still seems to be pushing hard to leave the paved lawn in and allow cars on the sidewalk, and Alderman Conway’s ignorant and threatening comment in a previous meeting with residents suggesting that if the block does not accept the paved lawn he would “put Section 8 housing there instead,†I believe that Alderman Conway is trying to force this paved lawn on the neighborhood regardless of what the residents think.
Come to this meeting even if you are not a resident of Halliday – this paved lawn sets a dangerous precedent in our historic neighborhoods!
Regardin 3557 Halliday
Does anyone know what is happening with the front lawn / parking pad of the building on the corner of Halliday and Grand (3557 Halliday) ? Seems last summer there were enough people concerned about the safety (myself being one) of walking the sidewalk and/or the landscape change from a typical front lawn to a parking pad there that I thought resulted in the subsequent tear out of the parking pad but the barren ground only remains and seems to just be sitting there. I ride my bike by there quite often and occasionally walk children by there to go to the park and I just wonder what is really going on? I have asked neighbors about it and heard rumor that the owner has received tax credits since removing the parking pad but plans to appeal to the city to again add back the parking pad. I continue to be concerned about the safety associated with that possibility Does anybody know what really is planned for that front lawn / parking pad at the building on the corner of Grand and Halliday ?