Clayton May Get ‘TOD’ Overlay Districts
Zoning has been one of the most destructive forces in cities. It’s good intentions have been taken too far and as a result it is nearly impossible to do good urban design in most places in North America. Between density restrictions and excessive parking minimums the resulting pattern will be the non-walkable sprawl we have all around us.
One of the solutions, of course, is to trash current zoning in favor of something more reflective of today’s thinking (vs. yesterday’s thinking). Such a task is a huge undertaking. A compromise is to ease into it with an “overlay” in specific areas. An overlay district would superseed all existing zoning — thus replacing it for a defined area. Often these are used around transit stations to get the sort of density, diversity of users, and walkability that is desired at transit stops.
From a CMT news release yesterday:
The City of Clayton’s Plan Commission Architectural Review Board recently recommended to the Clayton Board of Alderman to adopt two Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay districts for the areas surrounding the Central Avenue and Forsyth Metrolink Stations. The new overlay codes in essence frees up the market to take advantage of MetroLink by encouraging mid to high density residential and mixed-use development surrounding each station.
A transit oriented development is a high density, mixed use area located within walking distance of a transit station. These areas are unique in that they maximize access to a mass transit station, encourage higher density, and de-emphasize the use of a car as the primary mode of transport.
This is exciting news. From the staff memo to the Clayton Planning Commission:
Key components of the draft Transit Oriented Development Districts include:
- Encourage higher density development by establishing minimum Floor Area Ratios and waiving FAR’s altogether depending on the location.
- Waives minimum off-street parking requirements based on a professional parking study clearly demonstrating need levels.
- Provides relief of height restrictions while requiring building step-backs in some areas.
- Establishes minimum front yard setbacks to encourage greater sidewalk widths.
- Limits automobile-type land uses such as service station and automobile agencies.
- Establishes site plan considerations to foster innovative site design such as green building certification, linkages between the development and the transit station, and greenspace/urban gathering areas.
The Clayton Business District Master Plan (1993) recognized the need to consider mass transit as a key component to redevelopment opportunities. MetroLink and its potential for influencing development are specified in four action areas (4, 5, 13, & 14) adjacent to the stations. In these action areas, the Business Districts Master Plan points to the need to consider MetroLink as one of the factors that may positively influence economic performance of the property and its use and design.
Read the discussion on the Urban St Louis forum here. You can download and review the actual articles for the Forsyth & Clayton stations. Now if I can only get some folks at City Hall to wake up and realize the need for such zoning in spots throughout the city.
Brad Pitt & PBS begins a series on sustainable urban designs: http://www.pbs.org/e2/podcasts.html
I am not sure why this is actually being called a TOD Overlay Code or district. Yes both “articles” mention transit and connections between the station but overall they are vague and lack committment to key components needed for a successful Transit-Oriented Development District.
From the above cited memo:
– Encourage higher density development by establishing minimum Floor Area Ratios and waiving FAR’s altogether depending on the location.
This is not true, the code reads: “There is no maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR).” No max FAR does not encourage or promote density, it simply doesn’t prohibit it.
– Waives minimum off-street parking requirements based on a professional parking study clearly demonstrating need levels.
They should have set maximum parking requirements, not left it to the descretion of Plan Commission & Board of Alderman. This means that parking maxes will not be the same throughout the TOD and ultimately will be led by the developer with the deepest pockets.
– Provides relief of height restrictions while requiring building step-backs in some areas.
What height restrictions? Clayton already has several tall buildings within the designated districts. Also the P&Z Committee’s failure to address building heights with respect to neighboring builidings an properties is somewhat concerning. If you want cohesion, building to building hieght ratios should be required.
– Establishes minimum front yard setbacks to encourage greater sidewalk widths.
In a TOD it is more important to establish maximum setbacks not minumums. Sidewalks can be addressed within this context or in a separate section of a TOD overlay code. With no maximum (except designated by underlying code) what stops a development from creating a setback of 40 foot or more?
– Limits automobile-type land uses such as service station and automobile agencies.
They almost get it right here, then the code allows surface parking lots and garages. Not only that, they left it open to allowing garages without groundfloor retail? This sounds more autocentric that TOD related to me.
– Establishes site plan considerations to foster innovative site design such as green building certification, linkages between the development and the transit station, and greenspace/urban gathering areas.
This is the part of the code that is encouraged, but not required. The LEED “Certified” level can be achieved by most any building locating itself in an urban area or a suburban business district such as Clayton. Why not give priority to slightly more difficult level of certification? “Linkages between developement and the transit station…” This should be required as it is part of a TOD.
With vague non-comittal zoning like this Clayton’s TODs may end up looking as great as the developments at the Brentwood/I-64 Station. I guess there is a linkage there between the grocery store and the Metro Station… Just dodge the cars entering/exiting the hideous garage without required groundfloor retail (or did they add some now, I forgot.).
Damn well articulated, Seth. This code is being sold to us as TOD when it is far from it. TOD is just a buzz term being thrown around because people think it is the next big thing but no one even tries to understand it. Steve, people like us need to point out that this is substandard before stuff like this that misses the mark in every major way becomes the standard around here.
One, at least they’re trying – it’s better than what we have now. Two, we need at least one successful local project before any developer will “bet the farm” that there may actually be a market for TOD projects here – remember, we really like our cars and free parking. The first “TOD” project in Denver (Englweood City Center) included a Wal·Mart and a less-than-midrise multi-family housing component, but it was successful, paving the way for the current crop of “real” TOD projects (that are also succeeding well, even in this market): http://www.rtd-denver.com > Facts\Projects\Criteria > Transit Oriented Development (TOD) We can create the best zoning in the country, and if the demand isn’t there, all it will be is a monument to big dreams. Just remember the old saying, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time . . .
A couple of people testified at the hearing. One was a lawyer representing a lawyer representing a developer who was against the requirement for first floor retail.
The commission had previously heard testimony opposing a marking maximum that was in a previous draft.
The planning director did discuss that the city would embrace strategies by developers to reduce parking demand by subsidized transit passes or WeCar support.
One woman asked that apartments be prohibited re: no lower income people.
I walked to the meeting from MetroLink and the sidewalk along Forsyth is too narrow and dark.
It is in this environment that the city moved forward. Not perfect, but a start as Jim suggests. Hopefully future reiterations will be better.
Both your points are well-taken. While the comparison to Englewood helps put this in perspective a bit, it really doesn’t make sense to compare Denver’s strong development market to St. Louis’ weak one. We do have to start somewhere and I imagine there was all kinds of resistance in the process here that forced the standards down. But the fact remains that this is not TOD code. You could call it TOD-enabling code, maybe, but developers are required to do just about nothing in it. Of course zoning needs to enable good development, but Clayton is probably the one place in the region that has to control growth and as such is the one area of opportunity for using sticks over carrots to get something done right. It’s a blown opportunity. Let’s not look at this like a complete victory is all I’m saying.
Charlotte’s light rail line has been open for only one year and yet its transit station area principles were adopted five years prior. From its website below, you can tell Charlotte is banking on the coordination of transit and land use to reshape its growth.
http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Charlotte+Future/Transit+Oriented+Development/home.htm
There is a critical difference between Transit Oriented Design/Development (TOD), and Transit Adjacent Design/Development (TAD). There are currently no effective TODs in St. Louis, but the office in which I work is in the downtown CBD, which is of course served by a number of Metrolink and bus stops. The nature of downtown St. Louis is not oriented to transit at all, but rather is simply adjacent to services. There is no particularly strong, legible connection to any of the transit stops as they currently are, and that’s largely to be expected when the built environment preceeds the transit service. To call most of what is being offered today as a TOD a TOD, one would of course have to refer to downtown St. Louis as a TOD. If a development were to directly follow the established direction of a transit line and perhaps be reflective of it, and most likely be physically constituent to the transit node itself, then it could be said that the development was transit-oriented.
.
The Boulevard St. Louis and Hanley Station developments are prime examples of this critical difference in the two forms of development with respect to a transit line and stop. Each of these projects are simply transit adjacent developments (TAD), moreso the Boulevard St. Louis then Hanley Station, because there is either no strong integral connection with the transit line (Hanley Station), or none at all (Blvd. St. Louis). In the case of Hanley Station, along with the retail building at the corner of Eager Road and Hanley (Best Buy) and Brentwood Pointe (Dierberg’s), the focus is disappointingly on the car and not the pedestrian. The pedestrian oriented qualities one might expect from a development isolated from anything else by a highway and multi-lane thoroughfares, would be ones that encourage visitors to amble about among the shops, and makes a priority of the connection of the shop walkways (where cafe seating would be encountered, e.g.) to the transit stop, and has cars deferring to the pedestrian-orientation.
.
One most likely arrives at this loose assemblage of entities (retail at Eager Rd. with parking garage, and residential at Hanley) by car, and leaves by car. Those that arrive by car to take metro are at least contributing to the better intent of such a development, but one if arrives by Metro, one can expect to climb out of a ditch by way of exceedingly long path to rear of Dierberg’s, where one then hopes to not get smashed by a delivery truck. Obviously, Metro occupied this existing rail corridor as a means of allowing the Cross County extention to actually be built, but the adjacency of the primarily automobile oriented developments, with meager connection to the transit line, as if it were an afterthought, indicates that we’ve still got a long, long way to go. That parking garage is atrocious, and the clunky elevated walkway between it and the Best Buy building is so hilariously suburban developer-ish.
e2 series has more and better ideas on creating sustainable urban environments than Clayton’s wannabe image “in support of the TOD concept”. This is only a small sectiion of the city, don’t forget who the property owners are and their goals. In permititng the property development at Bellevue and Clayton Rd, LEED requirements were the silver level not platinum.
– –
As the previous city manager has stated “we take our commitment to protecting the environment very seriously”. Suggestion, sit outside a CSD school and watch the line of SUVs grow. Some arrive 30 minutes before school is out and the majority sit with their SUVs idling while waiting. This is the environment being protected? What about Centene’s plans? Does CSD have a Safe Routes to School program? Does the city promote safe cycling by designationg miles of bike paths on Hanley, Clayton, Forsyth and Brentwood Blvds? Hanley Rd has been made substantially more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists in recent years. How many new parking spots have been built in that area in the last eight years? Steps in the right direction are good but baby steps are childish in this day and age.
– –
By the way, the parking garage at Hanley-Eager is exactly what was wanted by a large owner of real estate in the designated district. It IS all about the car in the Lou region, don’t kid yourselves. Even the Metro stations have large parking lots attached.
I know I’m a bit cynical, but my experience is that a) developers and “the market” ultimately control any outcome, and b) any zoning code is malleable. Politicians like to see new things built. Developers like to make money. If zoning needs to be changed to keep a developer happy, or a TIF or a LID put in place, in many/most cases, it happens. We have some fixed rail transit in place. We now just need to convince our local development community that they will make more money doing TOD than they will by doing things the same old way. Overlay zoning in Clayton is a tentative first step, and in many ways the growth around BJC and the Wash. U. Med. School is, in reality, TOD. But what’s really needed is a developer like Forest City (who’s done successful TOD projects elsewhere) coming to town, be it Clayton, St. Louis, Maplewood or Shrewsbury, and proving our local developers wrong!
McCormak Baron is doing TOD in other cities — usually with a low income housing element.
If a parking garage allows for commuter vehicle traffic to conflow to a transit node, and then to provide relief to the traffic volume on highways and streets and ultimately less destructive to our environment, then that is fine. The way a garage is incorporated into a development can really define its succes or failure from a design standpoint, and the Hanley garage would be a good example of careless sloppiness, and therefore a failure in my estimation. I don’t think there is anyone here that is kidding themselves, but to simply resign ourselves to an admission that the ‘Lou’ will not be anything other than all about the car seems deflating. I’ll demand more.
Everyone keeps waiting for developers to take the lead. The way I see it, the problem is that government does not do enough to create the atmosphere necessary for success. TOD by itself is not enough.
Here is a simplified, example. Create a new, direct line ran from a Clayton TOD to a Downtown TOD, from those two points disburse people into the county or the city. Go to one of these two sites and you can get anywhere.
There are many ways to do this, but the idea is to create a graphic, understandable transit system. The main gathering spaces will naturally become commercially important.
TODs do not exist in isolation, they are part of the community. The government should be taking the lead and having these discussions about how to maximize the potential of transit and the TODS. (you know MoDot, East West Gateway and Bi-State and political representatives)
Successful transit also requires a policy commitment to a different built environment. It means walkable environments and a provision for more small scale commercial along transit routes. Having homes on 100 and 150 foot lots is not conducive to transit.
Taken as a whole, city and county governments need to adapt different attitudes and policies for any TOD to truly work. If they take the lead then the developers will follow. (Also shrink project lot sizes to accommodate all sorts of developers and not just the mega men)
Urban planning at this juncture is captured by people who have a formula of chains, parking lots and roads that seemingly makes them money every time they build. It appears to me capitalism is really a reactionary tool. It seems to resist change rather than innovate.
Just a few thoughts:
1) You think with Clayton’s resources (decent budget, full-time planner, P&Z Committee, Architectural Review Board, eager developers, and engaged citizens) they could have developed something a little better than a 3-page document that truly has nothing TOD-specific in it. At best it is a form-based code that is TOD-enabling (See: Rob’s comment above).
2) Now is the time deny acceptance of these articles. If you are a citizen of Clayton or a user of transit in and around Clayton, you should DEMAND better work from your officials. Afterall, it is your tax money that created this gem. I would be concerned at what cost? Act now before its too late to get the shit back in the horse.
3) It is easy for all of us (myself included) to point at previous failures. I know when I do it, it is out of sheer frusteration. I am sick of seeing poorly thought out, second-rate development touted as TOD. I believe this is the reason TOD hasn’t caught on in this market: Not only are there no TODs, the stuff that is labelled TOD amounts to little more than four walls covered in EIFS with reasonable proximity to transit.
4) I ask this of all of you readers: What can I,me, we, you, all of us, do to encourage real TOD in St. Louis? How can we educate our elected officials? How can we educate our residents and citizens? How can we bring back comprehensive transit to the St. Louis area? How do we get in contact with developers looking to do this here?
I want suggestions from the readers of this blog.
Here is what I have to offer:
I am willing to consult pro-bono to any city that will actively pursue real TOD. I am willing to speak to you or your agency on this topic. I am willing to work with developers interested in creating TODs in St. Louis. I am willing to have lunch with people that are interested in learning about TOD. If you can think of something else, ask. If you are interested in my offer or my credentials, you can e-mail at sethteel (at) gmail (dot) com.