St. Louis Building Division Ignores 1968 Surface Parking Lot Regulation Meant To Ensure Proper Maintenance

After posting about the deteriorated condition of the surface parking lot next door at the end of August, see Generic Form Letters Mailed To Owners Of Poorly Maintained Surface Parking Lot Notifying Them Of Code Violations, the building department was very defensive about their complete lack of results. An inspector told me they couldn’t do anything about the poor condition of the for-profit parking lot — just send more letters.

“You can’t block off access?”, I asked. “No, that would be illegal”, he replied. I decided to research the law myself.

Naturally, I started with the St. Louis, Missouri – Code of Ordinances and Chapter 8.70 — Parking Stations.

The 2nd subsection defines a parking station as a parking lot. the 3rd discusses a permit:

No person, firm or corporation shall operate, maintain or conduct a parking station in the City without first obtaining a parking station permit from the Building Commissioner. A permit must be obtained for each parking station and no permit shall be transferable from one person to another nor transferable from one lot to another. 

The Building Commissioner may order barricades for any or all parking stations not in full compliance within one hundred and eighty days from the date of original notification.

Here are three later sections:

8.70.070 – Permit—Suspension or revocation—Hearing.
The building commissioner may refer any permit heretofore issued to the board of public service with the recommendation that a hearing be held to determine whether the permit should be suspended or revoked. The board shall designate a day for the hearing, and after considering the evidence and arguments submitted, may suspend or revoke the permit and license heretofore issued, upon proof of any of the following: 

A. The operator has knowingly made any false or materially incorrect statement in his application; 

B. The operator has made any charge for parking in excess of the rate posted on the required sign; 

C. The operator fails to keep an attendant on duty during the times specified in his application; and 

D. The operator has knowingly violated or knowingly permitted or countenanced the violation of any provision of this chapter. 

(Ord. 55061 § 1 (part), 1968: 1960 C. § 388.150 (part).)

See also §§ 8.70.090, 8.70.110
8.70.080 – Permit—Suspension or revocation—Barricading lot.
 
Upon suspension or revocation by the board of public service the police department shall upon notice by the building commissioner barricade the parking lot until further notice. No lot barricaded as herein provided shall be used for the purposes of a parking station. 

(Ord. 55061 § 1 (part), 1968: 1960 C. § 388.150 (part).)
8.70.090 – Annual inspection fee.
 
The building commissioner shall make or cause to be made an inspection at least once a year of every parking station within the city to ascertain whether the station is operated within the provisions of this chapter. An annual inspection fee shall be payable on the first day of January each year in accordance with the capacity of the parking station as follows: 

A. Under ten cars, seven dollars;

B. Ten to fifty cars, fifteen dollars;

C. All over fifty cars, twenty dollars;

Except these fees shall not be deemed to apply or be applicable to parking lots or parking stations operated by a church solely and exclusively for church parking. 

All inspection fees shall be paid within thirty days of billing date after which time they shall become delinquent, which shall because for revocation of the parking station permit. 

(Ord. 55932 § 2, 1971: prior Ord. 55080 § 2, 1968: Ord. 55061 § 1 (part), 1968: 1960 C. § 388.040.)

So I did a Sunshine Request asking for a copy of the most recent permit. The response?  “We don’t do that anymore.” Really? Can a city department just decide not to follow city ordinances?

All the ordinances listed in the various subsections of 8.70 were enacted prior to them being online, 1963-1979. So I went to the 3rd floor of the central library and looked up each and every ordinance. Fascinating documents up there! Anyway, in 1968 the original 1963 section was repealed & replaced. After changes were minor, dealing with the amount of the permit fee. The first such change came months after being enacted.

In another sunshine request I asked who made the decision to ignore this law, and when. The city didn’t have an answer. I suspect it was in the 1980s, which would explain how the owner of the parking lot at 1101 Locust got away with using public right-of-way (PROW) for years.

The URL for this section includes the word PAST after the chapter number (https://www.municode.com/library/mo/st._louis/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8BUTALIRE_CH8.70PAST), but it’s still listed. I wasn’t able to locate an ordinance repealing it. It looks like a valid regulation that has simply been ignored by the building division for years, possibly longer than anyone currently working there. Did a past administration direct the building division to ignore this ordinance to make St. Louis more friendly to parking lot businesses?

I just don’t know. What I do know is that my inquires finally got long-needed action next door. Again, on August 30th, I published the awful generic letters the city sent the out of town owners for the last couple of years.

Again, on August 30th I published the awful generic letters the city sent the out of town owners for the last couple of years. Right after that I had phone conversations & emails with a defensive building department. I began digging and submitting sunshine requests.

Meanwhile, I continued emailing with the building department because no permit was listed online. Permit isn’t required for maintenance, they say.  I email David Newburger, commissioner on the disabled, to make sure he’s reviewed the plan, disabled spaces, signs, etc. He has nothing to review.

I complained again and the short spaces were removed…again. The last few years trying to get this parking lot maintained has been eye opening. I naively thought reporting it to the Citizen’s Service Bureau a few years ago would get it resolved fairly quickly — boy was I wrong! I thought the main obstacle was the owner and/or operator. Turned out it was the Building Division,, who seem to defend the operators and fight tax paying property owners.

The city has many departments/divisions. I assume some are worse, most better. The next mayor needs to clean it up, fixing the existing culture. Unless repealed, the permit process for parking lots needs to be upheld.

— Steve Patterson

Opinion: Downtown Needs a Form-Based Code, Not An Old Height Restriction

The building at 620 Market, like most, has had numerous uses since it was first built, I recall attending a meeting at East-West Gateway when they were on the 2nd floor — back in the 90s. The most recent occupant was Mike Shannon’s restaurant, which closed January 30, 2016.

When St. Louis’ Chinatown, known as Hop Alley, was razed in the 1960s for Busch Stadium (1966-2006), a 35 ft height restriction was placed on the 620 Market deed. A taller building could have allowed occupants to look down into the new stadium. For a decade now the replacement Busch Stadium has been to the South and the old site a slowly developing mixed-use project between the Cardinals & developer Cordish, called Ballpark Village. Ironically, Phase 2 of Ballpark Village will include a tall building where occupants can look down into the current stadium.

Meanwhile, Mike Shannon has been trying to sell 620 Market. I’m sure, for the right price, he could find buyers willing to accept the 35 ft height restriction. Like anyone who owns real estate, he correctly views the substantial public & private investment in Ballpark Village as increasing the value of his property. Shannon’s former employer, the Cardinals, don’t want to agree to lifting the height restriction unless they get a say in what may replace the current building.  See Messenger: Mike Shannon takes on the Cardinals in battle to sell his building.

Results from the recent Sunday Poll:

Q: Agree or disagree? Cardinals/Cordish should get to approve/reject proposals for Shannon’s site in exchange for releasing 35ft height restriction.

• Strongly agree 1 [4%]
• Agree 0 [0%]
• Somewhat agree 3 [12%]
• Neither agree or disagree 4 [16%]
• Somewhat disagree 1 [4%]
• Disagree 6 [24%]
• Strongly disagree 9 [36%]
• Unsure/No Answer 1 [4%]

I’d forgotten to uncheck the option allowing user-entered answers, I turned it off after the first, which read: “no subsidy for Cordish unless restriction lifted” Agreed, but that should read ‘no ADDITIONAL subsidy for Cordish unless restriction lifted’.

This is another demonstration of failed urban design policy in St. Louis. Within the central business district the only regulation on height of new construction should be minimum height — not maximum.  Issues such as heights and design could easily be addressed within a form-based code, replacing our 1940s use-based code. Even a form-based overlay for Ballpark Village and surrounding a decade ago would’ve been a good idea.

St. Louis would rather battle parcel by parcel rather than determine a larger vision through a public process. Great for those in control, bad for creating a healthy city.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Should Height Restriction at 620 Market Remain?

Local news stories are great sources for weekly poll topics. The November 30th story ‘Messenger: Mike Shannon takes on the Cardinals in battle to sell his building‘ is the basis for today’s Sunday Poll. Here’s a summary off the issue:

• Any development at the location of the now-closed Shannon’s site is legally limited to 35 feet in height.
• This 35′ height restriction dates back to 1997 or 1966 — depending upon who you believe.
• The property is just North of the Ballpark Village site — where Busch Memorial Stadium was located 1966-2006.
• If a new owner could build a new structure higher than 35 feet the property is worth more money.
• Mike Shannon was a player and then announcer for the Cardinals.

The Cardinals offered to lift the height restriction but only if they  get a say in the site’s development.

Lots of great issues with this one, this poll will remain open until 8pm.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: Reduce The number of Vehicle Lanes on Eads Bridge

The recent non-scientific Sunday Poll was about the Eads Bridge,specifically the configuration of the top level.

Tere are the visuals from the poll:

Again, those voting were self-selected so the results aren’t scientific or representative of the regional mindset — just of 46 individuals. Still, these 46 do represent a small segment of the region — those interested in local infrastructure.

Q: How should the top of the Eads Bridge be configured in the future?

• 4 vehicle lanes, pedestrians Arch side only (existing) 12 [26.09%]
• 3 vehicle lanes, pedestrians Arch side only 5 [10.87%]
• 3 vehicle lanes, pedestrians both sides, wider on Arch side 5 [10.87%]
• 2 vehicle lanes, pedestrians Arch side only 3 [6.52%]
• 2 vehicle lanes, pedestrians both sides, wider on Arch side 14 [30.43%]
• 2 vehicle lanes, pedestrians both sides, equal width 3 [6.52%]
• 0 vehicle lanes, pedestrians full width 1 [2.17%]
• Unsure/No Answer 3 [6.52%]

Just over a quarter supported the maximum number of vehicle lanes (4). A smaller number (21.74%) supported reducing driving lanes from 4 to 3. A whopping 43.47% voted to reduce vehicle lanes from the existing 4 to 2. Only one person (2.17%) voted to eliminate cars altogether.

I support the option that happened to receive the most votes: “2 vehicle lanes, pedestrians both sides, wider on Arch side.” Why?

The pedestrian width is barely the minimum required while 4 vehicle lanes greatly exceeds demand. While I recognize the greatest pedestrian demand is on the Arch side, the North side is also interesting,

So why not just make it all pedestrian? That would be as bad as it is currently, just in a different way. When driving, I like to use the Eads Bridge to cross the Mississippi River — it is the only non-interstate bridge crossing the river downtown.

If anything, I think it is worthwhile to examine the configuration of the top deck and see if a change should be made in the future.

— Steve Patterson

Readers Prefer A Downtown Soccer Stadium Near Union Station

In the non-scientific Sunday Poll less than 10% of readers didn’t favor a dedicated soccer stadium, almost as many were undecided.  Just over half picked near Union Station first with Grand & Chouteau 2nd.

Q: Which of the following represents your priorities with respect to a dedicated soccer stadium:

• 1) no dedicated soccer stadium 2) Grand/Chouteau 3) Near Union Station 3 [4.92%]
• 1) no dedicated soccer stadium 2) Near Union Station 3) Grand/Chouteau 3 [4.92%]
• 1) Grand/Chouteau 2) Near Union Station 3) no dedicated soccer stadium 16 [26.23%]
• 1) Grand/Chouteau 2) no dedicated soccer stadium 3) Near Union Station 0 [0%]
• 1) Near Union Station 2) Grand/Chouteau 3) no dedicated soccer stadium 31 [50.82%]
• 1) Near Union Station 2) no dedicated soccer stadium 3) Grand/Chouteau 4 [6.56%]
• Unsure/No Answer 4 [6.56%]

Back in February 2016 I proposed a site near Union Station, see A Great Site For A Major League Soccer (MLS) Stadium In Downtown St. Louis. Regardless, I don’t think either ownership team or city leaders have the slightest clue about how to crete a quality pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. The Grand & Chouteau site should become a dense mixed-use neighborhood, but SLU is opposed to quality urbanism.

We’ll see what happens.

— Steve Patterson