Did the Preservation Board have any issues with the demos required for Restoration STL's "Skittles" building across from UCBC?
I'm assuming "no".
I'm assuming "no".
Hey even if you assumptions are correct, I’d be happy with 500k people in existing stock before we talk about destroying these brick beauties
- 6,128
^^quincunx and ^StLRainbow,
Apologies then. My frustration is largely built on a false premise from an amateur misreading of incomplete property records. I'm still frustrated by the neglect, but apparently I've picked the wrong target. Mea culpa. Please continue and I'll shut up now. (And b**** about Drury's actions on KHwy. And hope to see McKee bankrupted and stripped of his assets.)
Apologies then. My frustration is largely built on a false premise from an amateur misreading of incomplete property records. I'm still frustrated by the neglect, but apparently I've picked the wrong target. Mea culpa. Please continue and I'll shut up now. (And b**** about Drury's actions on KHwy. And hope to see McKee bankrupted and stripped of his assets.)
Never saw that one on the Preservation Board agenda. Cultural resources may have quietly approved it.Tim wrote: ↑Oct 20, 2022Did the Preservation Board have any issues with the demos required for Restoration STL's "Skittles" building across from UCBC?
I'm assuming "no".
CRO is recommending approval. Building is 71 apartments with a total of 50 parking spaces (32 spaces in the building and 18 on a gated lot on Swan). The FPSE neighborhood association has not reviewed this project.
Building density is pointless if all that happens is outsourcing empty space to an adjacent street
The parking lot on Swan is presently a vacant lot, so the net density increase is there thanks to 71 units on a parcel where maybe 9 or 10 units presently/used to stand. Preferably that lot on Swan would become something else.alexstl wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022Building density is pointless if all that happens is outsourcing empty space to an adjacent street
Yeah I think that's a bad trade. I actually think living on a block with a grassy lot is a lot more pleasant than with a parking lot.
I am surprised though that they are proposing more apartments than parking spaces, there's been a few people on this forum who have argued it's impossible to get financing for a project like that.
I am surprised though that they are proposing more apartments than parking spaces, there's been a few people on this forum who have argued it's impossible to get financing for a project like that.
Building meets minimum City Of St. Louis requirements. .75 (spaces) to 1 (dwelling) ratio.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022Yeah I think that's a bad trade. I actually think living on a block with a grassy lot is a lot more pleasant than with a parking lot.
I am surprised though that they are proposing more apartments than parking spaces, there's been a few people on this forum who have argued it's impossible to get financing for a project like that.
Both of the parcels on Swan were LRA lots. 4527 was transferred in 2019 but there is still only an option on 4531. I feel like LRA lots should be used to add housing.chriss752 wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022The parking lot on Swan is presently a vacant lot, so the net density increase is there thanks to 71 units on a parcel where maybe 9 or 10 units presently/used to stand. Preferably that lot on Swan would become something else.alexstl wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022Building density is pointless if all that happens is outsourcing empty space to an adjacent street
Also, for the person that was wondering - Forest Park Southeast Restoration is Frontdoor.
The usual city parking mandate is one per housing unit. FPSE has a form based code which removed any mandate. It actually has a max of one per unit. Here it's 0.7, progress! Let's end the mandate city-wide!STLAPTS wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022Building meets minimum City Of St. Louis requirements. .75 (spaces) to 1 (dwelling) ratio.PeterXCV wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022Yeah I think that's a bad trade. I actually think living on a block with a grassy lot is a lot more pleasant than with a parking lot.
I am surprised though that they are proposing more apartments than parking spaces, there's been a few people on this forum who have argued it's impossible to get financing for a project like that.
According to the property lookup both are owned by Groveland LLC.Sarah K wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022Both of the parcels on Swan were LRA lots. 4527 was transferred in 2019 but there is still only an option on 4531. I feel like LRA lots should be used to add housing.chriss752 wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022The parking lot on Swan is presently a vacant lot, so the net density increase is there thanks to 71 units on a parcel where maybe 9 or 10 units presently/used to stand. Preferably that lot on Swan would become something else.alexstl wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022Building density is pointless if all that happens is outsourcing empty space to an adjacent street
Also, for the person that was wondering - Forest Park Southeast Restoration is Frontdoor.
NextSTL - Grove Properties Plans Mixed-Use on Manchester
https://nextstl.com/2022/10/grove-prope ... anchester/
https://nextstl.com/2022/10/grove-prope ... anchester/
According the the land record database, it hasn't been transferred.quincunx wrote: ↑Oct 22, 2022According to the property lookup both are owned by Groveland LLC.Sarah K wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022Both of the parcels on Swan were LRA lots. 4527 was transferred in 2019 but there is still only an option on 4531. I feel like LRA lots should be used to add housing.chriss752 wrote: ↑Oct 21, 2022The parking lot on Swan is presently a vacant lot, so the net density increase is there thanks to 71 units on a parcel where maybe 9 or 10 units presently/used to stand. Preferably that lot on Swan would become something else.
Also, for the person that was wondering - Forest Park Southeast Restoration is Frontdoor.
The LRA site also still shows 4531 under its control. Not sure where the disconnect between the systems is happening.
The Preservation Board voted to defer consideration for up to 2 months to give time for the developer to engage the neighborhood.
Grove Properties also said they weren't seeking any tax incentives.
$11.7M and $300k zoning-only building permit applications submitted for the building and parking lot on Swan.
On the Preservation Board Dec 29 Prelim agenda
CRO staff recommend granting preliminary approval.
How does this project get approved and not the old Drury site?quincunx wrote: ↑Dec 28, 2022CRO staff recommend granting preliminary approval.
We'll hear tomorrow, but I'd wager they got support from FPSE NA and/or Ald Pihl.
Though I guess you're asking why did CRO staff recommend against Kingshighway and for this.
The PB granted preliminary approval for 4534-56 Manchester 4 yes, 1 present, 1 abstention.
- 2,430
So this was pretty interesting.... staff in the presentation said that they did not review the design for Skittles as there was no demo involved, but as mentioned at least one, and I believe two, older buildings were taken down for it. Also, regarding the issue of demo versus rehabbing the 6 old buildings for this project, it turns out that this location is outside the historic district boundaries, which made Historic Tax Credits really unlikely. (The developer also said he applied/looked at the Neighborhood Assistance Program (NAP), a state program that has some eligibility for for-sale rehabs, but was unsuccessful.)
All in all I think this process seemed to work quite well - engagement with/input from the Neighborhood Assn and alder Pihl's Development Review Committee now in place seemed to be productive and both groups were in general support. The only real challenge seemed to be the Swan parking. The developer agreed it wasn't ideal but stated getting the parking below the .70 ratio would make it difficult to secure financing and fail to meet project needs (my note... it's great to see this .70 ratio for a decent sized project, but hopefully not too far in the future such a project could work with a .50 or below parking ratio.)
^ Thanks for the deets. Question for someone with way more knowledge than me. Roughly how much more would the cost be for making the on-site lot a two-level parking deal as opposed to as-is with the lot on Swan? Not that it really matters at this point, I guess lol