urbanSTL

Chris, I have a couple more questions for you, if you are able to answer them:

1. At the last neighborhood association meeting, there was a lot of talk about garage ingress/egress, and the feasibility of moving the entry to the Oakland light on Kingshighway as in the first proposal that was out there. Vic made it sound like that was not a very attractive option to them but not totally off the table. Would that require any reconfiguring of the building, e.g., making the stepdowns higher because units will have to be moved, addition of new units to offset additional costs, etc.?

2. Is there any way to have Kingshighway access while maintaining alley access to the garage? I can imagine that it would be challenging, but it might also provide additional options for traffic dispersion. For the traffic on the neighborhood streets, it seems to me like the users from this building will mostly be going against traffic since they will be leaving the neighborhood in the morning and coming back in the afternoon, so I don't think the additional traffic will make the existing rush hour back-ups on Taylor and Manchester much worse, but having both options available might spread out the traffic a bit more.

3. For my own curiosity, absent the parking maximum in the Form Based Code, would Lux Living have picked the same number of parking spaces? At the meeting they mentioned this is the parking ratio they aim for in their developments, but I am wondering if the code had no parking specifications, would they have proposed less parking, more, or did the code limitation line up with their usual preference?

rbeedee wrote: ↑

Oct 24, 2021

Chris, I have a couple more questions for you, if you are able to answer them:

1. At the last neighborhood association meeting, there was a lot of talk about garage ingress/egress, and the feasibility of moving the entry to the Oakland light on Kingshighway as in the first proposal that was out there. Vic made it sound like that was not a very attractive option to them but not totally off the table. Would that require any reconfiguring of the building, e.g., making the stepdowns higher because units will have to be moved, addition of new units to offset additional costs, etc.?

2. Is there any way to have Kingshighway access while maintaining alley access to the garage? I can imagine that it would be challenging, but it might also provide additional options for traffic dispersion. For the traffic on the neighborhood streets, it seems to me like the users from this building will mostly be going against traffic since they will be leaving the neighborhood in the morning and coming back in the afternoon, so I don't think the additional traffic will make the existing rush hour back-ups on Taylor and Manchester much worse, but having both options available might spread out the traffic a bit more.

3. For my own curiosity, absent the parking maximum in the Form Based Code, would Lux Living have picked the same number of parking spaces? At the meeting they mentioned this is the parking ratio they aim for in their developments, but I am wondering if the code had no parking specifications, would they have proposed less parking, more, or did the code limitation line up with their usual preference?

1. The way I see it, they are open to the idea of having the garage entrance on Kingshighway, just the design would have to be tweaked a little bit to make it possible but nothing impossible. The only issue with this is that they'd have to seek a variance then. The goal was to stick to what the form based code says.
2. One or the other when it comes to parking entrance/exits. The site is tight so having two entrances would mean most of the first floor would be in-building driveways instead of usable space
3. If the parking maximum did not exist, there is the likelihood that the number of parking spaces here would be higher than 144. The ratio would be greater than 1 space to 1 unit.

Thanks Chris, that is helpful. I don't feel strongly about how the garage is entered, but it seems like the neighborhood in general favors the Kingshighway entrance, and it sounds like that is still feasible if a variance is approved.

Good to know the Form-Based Code might be encouraging less parking! I know people complain a ton about parking, but it is hard for me to see many people choosing to go car-free or emphasize public transit use if parking remains cheap and convenient.

Chris, follow-up question for you: it seems like the feedback from both meetings favored a solution to traffic that would require a variance to the form based code, whether that meant moving the entrance/exit to Kingshighway, or something else. If the community feedback is in favor of a variance, can Lux Living work with the Alderwoman to acquire a variance that would enable them to build something more to the community's liking? 

It seems to me that adherence to the form-based code is not the end-all-be-all, especially on a unique spot like these parcels where access is difficult. I see no reason why the developer and the Alderwoman cannot work together to reach a compromise that benefits the neighborhood.

Michael B wrote: ↑

Oct 27, 2021

Chris, follow-up question for you: it seems like the feedback from both meetings favored a solution to traffic that would require a variance to the form based code, whether that meant moving the entrance/exit to Kingshighway, or something else. If the community feedback is in favor of a variance, can Lux Living work with the Alderwoman to acquire a variance that would enable them to build something more to the community's liking? 

It seems to me that adherence to the form-based code is not the end-all-be-all, especially on a unique spot like these parcels where access is difficult. I see no reason why the developer and the Alderwoman cannot work together to reach a compromise that benefits the neighborhood.

When the Alderwoman doesn't answer your emails or phone calls, it's practically impossible to have this discussion with her. You can send her 20 things and she wont get back to us for like 3 weeks or a month later. I'm more lenient with her since she's new but of all the Alderpeople in St. Louis that I have had to deal with, she's the most unresponsive and that's unfortunate. I imagine she'll get into the swing of things soon though but for us to have a discussion about a variance with her, she needs to at least respond to a single email within a timeframe of less than a month.

TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote:You must be talking about Ms. Navarro.  Of the 5 times I have contacted her office or emailed as a constituent I have been responded to zero times. 

That’s Waterman and Clara. This is Alderwoman Pihl.

I guess they can gut them if they like, but they can't demo the buildings yet, afaik.

Any word on this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dbehrens011 wrote: ↑

Apr 01, 2022

Any word on this?

Since everyone knows I work for them now, and have for a few months, I can answer this honestly: I’m not involved in this project specifically (mostly outside stuff), but I know there’s been some talk in the background about this. Not sure where it’s going since I’m not involved in those discussions, but if I know what’s up I’ll let you know

It is on the preliminary agenda of the Preservation Board May 23rd meeting.

The updated design addresses some concerns had by residents during last fall's meetings. Some changes include...

• The design was changed to be a dark brown and dark gray brick color and has warehouse style windows now. Basically, the design was entirely overhauled although some will argue that there's a family resemblance within the VE Design and Lux portfolio.
• Parking entrance and exits are once again on Kingshighway (to reduce traffic on the side streets).
• Pool deck now faces Kingshighway instead of the neighborhood (concern there was the pool deck could become a party thing and neighbors didn't want that facing the neighborhood, which makes sense).

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

May 14, 2022

Any chance we'll see some updated renderings soon?

I have one on my computer but won’t post yet. Supposedly Cultural Resources staff gets upset if you post it before the agenda is posted.

KC Riverfront apartment project in doubt after commissioners hear criticisms of St. Louis developer

https://news.stlpublicradio.org/2022-05-16/riverfront-apartment-project-in-doubt-after-commissioners-hear-criticisms-of-st-louis-developer

I love the doom and gloom headlines the Post and Public Radio have been putting out recently. Almost as if it’s a connected effort. The project isn’t at risk of dying, it’s just a minor setback that needs some work. And on the school district issue, I see that Kathleen Pointer would rather keep a property contributing $0 to the tax rolls than support a project that even with the current incentive ask, contributes over $5.5 million to the tax base over 25 years.

As for due diligence, I think it was a big move for PortKC staff to show up here, unannounced, to tour properties and interview residents to see if claims hold up. If they want a deeper dive, go ahead. We’re working on making things better and if people can’t see or understand that, then it’s no use. The past can’t be changed, but we also can’t change things overnight. It takes time.

This, like Katz and Kingshighway and Optimist, will return even if it involves additional communication, agreements, and so on.

Richard Callow says the demos for this won't be considered by the Preservation Board at the next meeting.