Follow-up on Proposed Bill to “Blight” a Mile of Jefferson Ave.
Last evening I attended the meeting relating to the proposed ordinance to blight the properties fronting onto Jefferson Avenue from Gravois to Potomac (see prior post). Basically, it is a routine action and nothing to get excited over — both good or bad. In short the “plan” does little more than make it easier to grant 5-year tax abatement to any qualifying project within the boundaries of the area. So, rather than having to go through a mountain of paperwork and numerous meetings to give tax abatement to multiple projects in the area each and every year, this simply allows the bureaucrats to approve projects and issue the tax abatement. In general, I believe this is a very good thing.
Ald. Ken Ortmann and Christian Saller from the SLDC (St. Louis Development Corporation) did a good job explaining the various aspects of the ordinance and exhibits. One they could not stress enough is the language that does specifically prohibit the use of Eminent Domain to acquire properties. Repeating for those in the back: this does not have any provisions for eminent domain and quite clearly spells out that it is prohibited. Still, I can sympathize with those that were in the room with more than a little distrust at those in office. One citizen mentioned how former Mayor Vince Schoemehl said there would not be a QuikTrip at the corner of Jefferson & Chippewa but that it got built in his last year in office anyway. Distrust runs rampant and given our history and current lack of communication I understand.
In reality this isn’t a plan at all. I think they have to call it a plan to meet state guidelines just like they must technically “blight” an area even though they’d much rather use a better term. A plan, in my mind, would have more substance and less boiler plate language. OK, maybe not less boiler plate but certainly more specifics to the area. More on that later.
As we had with the McDonald’s drive-thru issue on Grand, a number of uses are prohibited in the area — but only if they receive tax abatement. So, if a drive-thru restaurant wants to open next door to a check cashing place (with parking in front) nothing in this plan prevents that from happening — it only prevents them from getting tax abatement. Of course, on Grand we saw Ald. Florida go before the LCRA board and seek an exemption for the parcel sought by McDonald’s and such an exemption would have then paved the way for tax abatement. Back to this hypothetical fast food restaurant and check cashing place that want to move into the area and build new. The “plan” does nothing to prevent this from happening — all we have is the outdated zoning code and Ald. Ortmann’s verbal word he wouldn’t allow that.
Based on Ortmann’s track record with respect to buildings I think I’d take him at his word. He is very passionate about saving buildings and I think he understands the fundamentals of good urban design. But, Ortmann will not be alderman forever. Furthermore, in five years the ward boundaries will change and it is quite possible that some or all of this redevelopment area will end up in another ward(s). What then? Well, say the Hood’s property on Jefferson near Cherokee ends up in another ward by 2012. And say whomever is Alderman is not so urban minded and goes along with a developer that wants to build a typical strip center — one story buildings set far away from the street behind a sea of parking. Guess what, the process for getting tax abatement for that “investment” is much easier if this bill is passed now in 2006. Ortmann wouldn’t go for such a thing on that site but the blighting is not conditional upon Ortmann remaining Alderman. If they want to write ordinance such that it is only valid as long as he remains Alderman for the area in question then I’m OK with it. But, in the real world, that isn’t very realistic. Neither is leaving matters of urban design up in the air depending upon the whim of who happen to be Alderman on a given day in time. If we are going to make it easier to give blanket tax abatement for an area we need to pass some blanket zoning for the same exact area.
The F-Neighborhood Commercial zoning and the G-Commercial & Office District zoning leave too much at risk. They list some permitted uses, ban others and never once talk about what the city is seeking. Title 26 will show you all the zoning classification that exist in the city. Basically, this all needs to be tossed aside and started from scratch. In the meantime, we can do what is called an “overlay district” where a new zoning code is written that replaces the existing code for that particular area.
A few examples of items that could be covered in a new zoning overlay for this soon to be blighted area include:
• Bike parking requirements for commercial businesses. This could be written such that for every bike parking space they include in the project they could reduce the number of required auto spaces. The zoning could also allow for the placement of bike racks within the public right-of-way without the cumbersome requirements now placed upon building owners that wish to have bike parking.• Provide maximums on parking rather than minimums. Currently the zoning sets minimums but owners are free to provide excessive amounts of surface parking if they’ve got the room. Back to the Hood’s location at 3300 S. Jefferson, the site is roughly 1.44 acres. There is nothing in the code to prevent them from putting up a small commercial building with the balance being all paved parking. Is that what we want? Developers will ensure they have a minimum of parking, what we need is to keep them going overboard and actually having too much.
• Address front & side setbacks — do not permit large setbacks. Currently in the F-Neighborhood Commercial zoning district an owner can place a structure back 50 ft on the site. This is enough to get a drive and parking in front of the building and ruin the street. Why should investors do a project in the area when the guy next door can come along and do a suburban project set back 50ft from the property line?
• Outright prohibit drive-thru establishments and gas stations. The last thing we want is for Hood’s to be replaced with a QuikTrip. The one saving grace with the Hood’s site might be the new Benton Park Historic Standards but those mostly regulate the building design and do not relate to the overall site planning issues. They would, to be fair, likely prevent a standard QuikTrip from being built. However, the corner of Arsenal & Jefferson where condos are planned but not yet financed has no such protections. A QT or Walgreen’s could be built on that corner per the zoning. Again, Ald. Ortmann says he wouldn’t do that and I tend to believe that he would not but the option still remains should the condo deal fall through.
• If you read through the zoning classifications and the historic standards you know what you can’t do. But, you don’t get a clear picture of what is envisioned for the area. This is how we end up with the new garbage that we do, we don’t articulate how we’d like this corridor to look. The solution? Form-based codes. Here are advantages from the Form-Based Codes Institute:
Eight Advantages to Form-Based Codes
Because they are prescriptive (they state what you want), rather than proscriptive (what you don’t want), form-based codes (FBCs) can achieve a more predictable physical result. The elements controlled by FBCs are those that are most important to the shaping of a high quality built environment.FBCs encourage public participation because they allow citizens to see what will happen where-leading to a higher comfort level about greater density, for instance.Because they can regulate development at the scale of an individual building or lot, FBCs encourage independent development by multiple property owners. This obviates the need for large land assemblies and the megaprojects that are frequently proposed for such parcels.
The built results of FBCs often reflect a diversity of architecture, materials, uses, and ownership that can only come from the actions of many independent players operating within a communally agreed-upon vision and legal framework.
FBCs work well in established communities because they effectively define and codify a neighborhood’s existing “DNA.” Vernacular building types can be easily replicated, promoting infill that is compatible with surrounding structures.
Non-professionals find FBCs easier to use than conventional zoning documents because they are much shorter, more concise, and organized for visual access and readability. This feature makes it easier for nonplanners to determine whether compliance has been achieved.
FBCs obviate the need for design guidelines, which are difficult to apply consistently, offer too much room for subjective interpretation, and can be difficult to enforce. They also require less oversight by discretionary review bodies, fostering a less politicized planning process that could deliver huge savings in time and money and reduce the risk of takings challenges.
FBCs may prove to be more enforceable than design guidelines. The stated purpose of FBCs is the shaping of a high quality public realm, a presumed public good that promotes healthy civic interaction. For that reason compliance with the codes can be enforced, not on the basis of aesthetics but because a failure to comply would diminish the good that is sought. While enforceability of development regulations has not been a problem in new growth areas controlled by private covenants, such matters can be problematic in already-urbanized areas due to legal conflicts with first amendment rights.
~ Peter Katz, President, Form-Based Codes Institute
Form-based codes are the basis of the many successful New Urbanist projects all over the country, including New Town at St. Charles. This establish a vision and allow for deviations that result in varied architecture that gives an overall desired character through massing and such. Standard codes simply can’t achieve that. For New Town the developers have a form-based code which is an overlay to the standard zoning in the City of St. Charles. Once more, New Town’s zoning is entirely different from and replaced the standard zoning classifications and terms for their section of St. Charles. There is no reason this cannot be achieved on this mile of Jefferson and anywhere else where we need to strengthen the urban fabric.
Through a public question and conversation afterwards I think Ald. Ortmann is open to the general concept of such an overlay for the zoning but this is the part that I don’t think he quite gets — yet. He certainly didn’t voice any strong objections. I believe the combination of the “blight” to offer 5-year tax abatement and new zoning will greatly strengthen this corridor. A simple blighting plan could end up light so many others — “blight” remains for decades with little action.
