Readers: Don’t Build South County Connector

A majority of readers favor Trailnet’s suggestions to focus on transit, biking, and walking efforts to reduce automobile congestion:

Q: How should St. Louis County reduce auto congestion between Hanley & Watson?

1. Focus on transit, bicycling and walking solutions 60 [57.14%]
2. Build proposed “South County Connector” partially-elevated roadway 25 [23.81%]
3. Do nothing 16 [15.24%]
4. Unsure/no opinion 4 [3.81%]

The pro-Trailnet crowd combined with the “do nothing” group total a whopping 72.38% that didn’t select the built it option.

A public meeting will be held Thursday May 30th.

The South County Connector Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be available for public review and comment from Friday, May 3, 2013 to July 19, 2013. During the review period, the St. Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic will host a public hearing for the Draft EIS on Thursday, May 30, 2013 from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Shrewsbury City Center (located at 5200 Shrewsbury Avenue, Shrewsbury, Missouri 63119).

The public hearing is an opportunity for interested persons to give testimony concerning the Draft EIS, including potential social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed roadway alternatives. Representatives of the South County Connector Study Team will also be available to provide information and answer questions about the Draft EIS at an open house meeting held at the same time as the public hearing. No formal presentation will be made. Display boards and copies of the Draft EIS will be available for review at the open house meeting. (South County Connector)

If you are among those who don’t think this project should move forward please contact all of the following:

• The study team (link with form and email address)
• The St. Louis County Council (this is in the 5th district)
• St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley

We’ve invested millions in transit, now is the time to double-down on transit to get a return on our existing infrastructure investment.

— Steve Patterson

Proposed Rebuild of Kenrick Plaza in Shrewsbury, MO Ignores Walkability & ADA (UPDATED)

I’m not a fan of Walmart, but this post isn’t an attack on the Walmart business model. Instead the purpose of this post is to show how the redevelopment of Kenrick Plaza (map), proposed by G. J. Grewe, as presented, will not meet the minimum requirements of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 (ADA).

First let’s take a quick look at the area:

A report prepared by PGAV details how Kenrick Plaza is in bad physical condition, the layout doesn’t work well (former Burger King blocks views of retail space behind, etc.) and it doesn’t work for people with disabilities.

Here’s the proposed site plan, which includes cutting off public access to Watson Rd for many houses, leaving one entrance off of Laclede Station as the sole way in and out, with an exception for cutting through the private “lower Kenrick Plaza” area.

The same report talks about the new proposal…

COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shrewsbury (the “Comprehensive Plan”) dated March 1970, designates the land use for the Area to be commercial. The Comprehensive Plan, drafted as the Kenrick Seminary lands became open for development, envisioned the land uses immediately adjacent to Watson Road as a commercial corridor that would bring the City’s percentage of commercial land up to 10.4% from a meager 3%. The City was heavily dominated by residential and institutional uses and lacked significant commercial acreage.

The Comprehensive Plan was followed in the original construction of Kenrick Plaza as a commercial district supporting the surrounding residential development that largely lacked retail, entertainment, and restaurant options within close proximity. Also accommodated in the Comprehensive Plan was the construction of one or more television towers. This redevelopment plan maintains the Area as commercial land use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and accommodates the existing television tower. The map depicting future land use included in the Comprehensive Plan specifically and clearly designates the Area for commercial land use.

Oh good, it complies with the 1970 “Comprehensive Plan”! Apparently nothing in Shrewsbury has changed in the last 43 years. I want to point out a few big red flags about this proposal:

Shrewsbury should be requiring more connections, not fewer.

206 Accessible Routes

206.1 General. Accessible routes shall be provided in accordance with 206 and shall comply with Chapter 4.

206.2 Where Required. Accessible routes shall be provided where required by 206.2.

 206.2.1 Site Arrival Points. At least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Where exceptions for alterations to qualified historic buildings or facilities are permitted by 202.5, no more than one accessible route from a site arrival point to an accessible entrance shall be required.

2. An accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access.

 Advisory 206.2.1 Site Arrival Points. Each site arrival point must be connected by an accessible route to the accessible building entrance or entrances served. Where two or more similar site arrival points, such as bus stops, serve the same accessible entrance or entrances, both bus stops must be on accessible routes. In addition, the accessible routes must serve all of the accessible entrances on the site.

Advisory 206.2.1 Site Arrival Points Exception 2. Access from site arrival points may include vehicular ways. Where a vehicular way, or a portion of a vehicular way, is provided for pedestrian trvel, such as within a shopping center or shopping mall parking lot, this exception does not apply.

206.2.2 Within a Site. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces that are on the same site.

EXCEPTION: An accessible route shall not be required between accessible buildings, accessible facilities, accessible elements, and accessible spaces if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing pedestrian access.

Advisory 206.2.2 Within a Site. An accessible route is required to connect to the boundary of each area of sport activity. Examples of areas of sport activity include: soccer fields, basketball courts, baseball fields, running tracks, skating rinks, and the area surrounding a piece of gymnastic equipment. While the size of an area of sport activity may vary from sport to sport, each includes only the space needed to play. Where multiple sports fields or courts are provided, an accessible route is required to each field or area of sport activity. (2010 ADA Standards)

In short this says it is ok to require pedestrians to use an auto drive to a facility like a Starbuck’s but that exception isn’t applicable to a shopping center. Elsewhere in the same link as above, the term “shopping center” is defined as:

(A) A building housing five or more sales or rental establishments; or

(B) A series of buildings on a common site, either under common ownership or common control or developed either as one project or as a series of related projects, housing five or more sales or rental establishments. For purposes of this section, places of public accommodation of the types listed in paragraph (5) of the definition of “place of public accommodation” in section § 36.104 are considered sales or rental establishments. The facility housing a “shopping center or shopping mall” only includes floor levels housing at least one sales or rental establishment, or any floor level designed or intended for use by at least one sales or rental establishment.

Developer G. J. Grewe and Architect TRi should be ashamed for submitting such a plan, this isn’t 1970 despite the fact Shrewsbury’s comprehensive plan hasn’t been updated.

As I was finishing this post yesterday I received an email from Shrewsbury Mayor Felicity indicating “accessibility is being addressed with sidewalks from the bus stop to the stores.”  The site plan on the Shrewsbury website is a preliminary concept. I requested an updated copy but I have not received it.

UPDATE 5/22/2013 @ 3:30pm:

At 3pm I received from Shrewsbury Director of Administration, Jonathan Greever, a PDF copy of “of the current special use permit site plan. This document is limited in that it does not address the entire site and its intended use is not for construction. The purpose for this document is different than that of a fully engineered plan. As stated previously, the final engineered plans have not been generated.” You can view it on Scribd here.

— Steve Patterson

Potential Development Sites Along Proposed Streetcar Line, Part 3: 14th & Olive To North Florissant & St. Louis Ave.

In the first two parts of this series on development sites along a proposed streetcar route I looked at Olive from 15th-16th and Olive from 16th-18th. In both cases it was a small area and I looked a specific buildings and parcels of land. Heading to N. Florissant Ave. & St. Louis Ave. nearly everything is a development site.

Let’s start downtown and work our way north. At 14th & Olive you have the library on the NE corner and the library administration building & a charter high school on the NW corner. I think the library admin building has office space available for lease.

Before we go any further north it makes sense to look at the route on a map along with a development zone on each side of the line. Light rail has stations miles apart, whereas streetcars are more like buses by having more frequent stops along the route.

The area between the green lines is the immediate area that I estimate to be part of a special transportation district with slightly higher property taxes, pro-rated based on distance.  The red lines are a quarter mile distance, the usual distance a person is willing to walk.

Quite a bit of this area is in what will be one of the Northside Regeneration job centers.

With so much vacant land & buildings, this stretch of the proposed streetcar line has the greatest potential for redevelopment. It will also be a challenge initially to get projects funded. Once the line is open and Paul McKee builds one of his job centers near Tucker & Cass things will start to take off. Form-based codes requiring dense urban design will be key to getting the right kind of construction.

It’ll take at least a decade, if not two, for this to be built out.

— Steve Patterson

b

Street Trees Must Be Planted Deep Enough the Root Ball Won’t Dry Out

The Crown Food Mart at 1515 N. 13th opened in 2009, with street trees planted on all sides. Few have survived.

Some will say the city is a harsh environment for street trees, the road salt and chemicals used to clear snow & ice from streets is too much for new trees to handle. Perhaps, but when half the root ball is above the level of the adjacent sidewalk the tree is going to dry out and die. If it happens to survive it will eventually bust the sidewalk as shallow roots seek water.

How should it be planted? Deeper!

I don’t know if a contractor for the new building or the city planted these trees, whomever it was did a poor job.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Hills Medical Center Violates ADA

Every once in a while I run across a blatant ADA violation, usually when I’m trying to go somewhere in my daily life. This one I discovered purely by accident, while looking for a neighboring property on Google Street View.

From October 2008:

Owners of the vacant St. Louis Hills Office Center at 6500 Chippewa Street last week received preliminary approval from the St. Louis Board of Adjustment to do interior and exterior renovations on the five-story brick building.

In meeting with neighbors, they also have resolved some, but not all of the concerns of surrounding residents about traffic, parking and other issues.

The board required that cars going from the center’s parking lot into an adjacent alley turn right toward Chippewa. There also must be a privacy fence. (Suburban Journal)

The wing had already been torn off by that point. Let me show you the problem…

In case you missed it, the problem is the provided pedestrian route isn’t accessible to everyone. If a pedestrian entrance is provided, everyone must be able to use it.

Presumably a licensed architect was involved in this project, their errors & omissions insurance may be paying for a ramp.

— Steve Patterson