Lindell and Boyle

imran · PostAug 18, 2015#12015-08-18T01:23+00:00

It looks like the run-down Phillip 66 gas station at the northeast corner of the intersection is now closed. The pumping stations are gone and there is a dirt mover on the site.

Could it be that a third gas station in the area is giving way to something more significant?

This lot is covered by the CWE form based code so it should not be a QuickTrip.
Trying not to get too excited. Does anyone have the scoop?

CWESTL · PostAug 18, 2015#22015-08-18T02:10+00:00

Not aware of any renderings, but the following building permit has been issued:

Project Type: Alteration
Application Number: 515254
Application Date: 07/14/2014
Issued Date: 02/17/2015
Structure Type: Commercial
Estimated Costs: $1,500,000.00
Contractor: OWNER
Application Description: INTERIOR & EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS ZONING ONLY PER PLANS

roger wyoming II · PostAug 18, 2015#32015-08-18T02:31+00:00

^ the permit issuance was for OFF/CONV/CARWAS. Interesting though that the permit suggests renovation but the owners this month submitted an application to wreck the building.

framer · PostAug 18, 2015#42015-08-18T04:31+00:00

Interesting. This is a prime site; worth keeping an eye on what's up.

westpine · PostAug 18, 2015#52015-08-18T15:38+00:00

[After lurking for many years, I decided to finally post something!]

Above is a plan for the new gas station/convenience store/car wash that I was fortunate to obtain from a real estate agent who noticed it attached as part of the seller's disclosure for a place for sale on Maryland behind the gas station.

Please note that the above plan is over one-year old and is listed as revision one, so it may not be the final version. (I tried to obtain the approved plans at City Hall, but was told the City destroys the plans once a permit has been issued.)

(Some possible good news for those living nearby: According to the permits, there may no longer be a laundromat.)

While at City Hall, I talked to a fellow in the Cultural Resources Office. He told me that not a single project in the CWE's Form-Based Code area had been approved without variances from that code, and thus he considered it be essentially meaningless---which is quite unfortunate considering the time and effort that went into creating it.

Presbyterian · PostAug 18, 2015#62015-08-18T16:03+00:00

The Form Based Code requires three stories with 85% built to the building line. This proposal is set back well behind the building line and even that is only about 40%.

roger wyoming II · PostAug 18, 2015#72015-08-18T16:05+00:00

^^ thanks for posting; I guess the form-based code has no legs. Disappointing that a gas station will continue to be the use and I probably wouldn't be too happy with a car wash if I lived behind it. But it may be a bit less "sketchy."

I also noticed today that it looks like something may be happening to the commercial use mansion next door.... I don't know what the deal is there but records show it sold earlier this month.

downtown2007 · PostAug 18, 2015#82015-08-18T16:43+00:00

Who are the teeth of the firm based code? Residents, Alderman, Preservation Board?

imran · PostAug 18, 2015#92015-08-18T16:48+00:00

This is in Alderman Kennedy's ward.

downtown2007 · PostAug 18, 2015#102015-08-18T17:45+00:00

So is he responsible for making sure news developments fit to plans?

STLEnginerd · PostAug 18, 2015#112015-08-18T18:30+00:00

if there was a new use proposed i could understand trying to enforce Form Based Code but Consider this. The property owner gives you two choices. I would like to rebuild the gas station making it more attractive overall but if you say no then we keep operating the station as is which looks really bad and rundown. Do you allow them to be grandfathered in?

I am conflicted but I tend toward yes. I would not allow a gas station to be built anywhere new in the CWE, but i can see letting this slide.

imran · PostAug 18, 2015#122015-08-18T20:47+00:00

There is now a chain link fence around the property.

debaliviere · PostAug 18, 2015#132015-08-18T20:51+00:00

imran wrote:This is in Alderman Kennedy's ward.

(Sad trombone)

mjbais1489 · PostAug 18, 2015#142015-08-18T21:50+00:00

STLEnginerd wrote:if there was a new use proposed i could understand trying to enforce Form Based Code but Consider this. The property owner gives you two choices. I would like to rebuild the gas station making it more attractive overall but if you say no then we keep operating the station as is which looks really bad and rundown. Do you allow them to be grandfathered in?

I am conflicted but I tend toward yes. I would not allow a gas station to be built anywhere new in the CWE, but i can see letting this slide.

That's what I assumed occurred which I agree is probably the best strategy

roger wyoming II · PostAug 19, 2015#152015-08-19T03:33+00:00

Nearby, the Lawrence Group project at the old Remington Rand Building looks to be making good progress as well as the residential conversion of 4242 Lindell. The exterior of 4242 looks really nice.

PostAug 28, 2015#162015-08-28T22:11+00:00

It's now gone... that was quick.

Randy · PostAug 29, 2015#172015-08-29T02:00+00:00

http://www.parkcentraldevelopment.org/C ... .29.13.pdf