Richmond Heights, MO Blighting Study - Menards

8/13/2019 Richmond Heights, MO Blighting Study - Menards

1/53

DATAANDANALYSISOFCONDITIONSREPRESENTINGABLIGHTEDAREA

FORTHE

HADLEY TOWNSHIP SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AREA

FEBRUARY 26,2013


2/53

DATA AND ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS

REPRESENTING A BLIGHTED AREA

FOR THE

HADLEY TOWNSHIP SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AREA

February 26, 2013


3/53


4/53

TABLE OF CONTENTS1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1

Study Area .............................................................................................................. 1

Overview of Previous Redevelopment Efforts ...................................................... 2 Historical Development ......................................................................................... 4

Existing Development ............................................................................................ 5

Existing Zoning ....................................................................................................... 7

Neighboring Development ..................................................................................... 8

Data Gathering Methodology ................................................................................ 9

2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. 10 Summary ............................................................................................................. 10

Finding of Blight .................................................................................................. 13

3.0 BLIGHTING FACTORS ............................................................................................. 14 Age of Buildings ................................................................................................... 15

Obsolescence ...................................................................................................... 17

Inadequate or Outmoded Design ....................................................................... 17

Physical Deterioration ......................................................................................... 21

Economic Liability ............................................................................................... 26

Social Liability ...................................................................................................... 27

Crime .................................................................................................................... 28 Inability to Pay Reasonable Taxes ..................................................................... 29

APPENDICESA. Legal Description of Hadley Township South Redevelopment AreaB. Parcel Numbers Map and Parcel InformationC. Photographs of Blighting Conditions

EXHIBITS1. Redevelopment Area Aerial ................................................................................... 12. Existing Land Use ................................................................................................... 63. Existing Zoning ....................................................................................................... 74. Neighborhood Development Aerial ....................................................................... 85. Blighting Conditions ............................................................................................ 146. Date of Construction of Buildings ...................................................................... 167. Obsolescence and Outmoded Design Factors .................................................. 188. Condition of Structures ....................................................................................... 239. Rights-of-Way Conditions .................................................................................... 2610.Parcel Identification Map .....................................................................APPENDIX B


5/53

Hadley Township South Redevelopment Area Blight Analysis 1

1.0 INTRODUCTIONSTUDY AREADevelopment Strategies was tasked with a study of the Hadley Township South Redevelopment

Area (the Redevelopment Areaor Area), which encompasses approximately 17.2 acres,excluding rights-of-way, in the City of Richmond Heights (the City). The Area extends generally

from Elinor Avenue on the north, to Berkley Avenue and Hampton Creek on the east, to West

Bruno Avenue on the south, to Hanley Road on the west (see Aerial of Redevelopment Area). The

Redevelopment Area contains a total of 103 parcels of property.


6/53


OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTSOver the last 24 years, the Hadley Township South Redevelopment Area has attracted various

speculators, fostered in large part by the increasing traffic on Hanley Road, the proximity to I-64, the

success of neighboring redevelopment efforts, and the obsolescence of the existing uses in the Area.

Today, approximately 28 percent of the properties are owned by speculators and investment owners.

Summarized below are the events that have led up to the current interest in redevelopment of the

Area:

1999-2002 Multiple land speculators and developers made contact with property owners wanting

to purchase their property.

May thru July 2002Several residents living in the neighborhood expressed concern about

developer activity.

November 2002

City hired Woolpert LLC, a professional planning firm to assess theneighborhood.

August 2003 A petition was submitted by the Hadley Township Homeowners Associationasking

the City Council to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for in-fill housing as outlined in the

Woolpert Study.

September 2003At a special City Council workshop meeting, the City Council requested staff to

develop a Request for Proposal that substantially followed the request made by the Hadley

Township Homeowners Association.

THF submitted a plan to redevelop the entire area, proposing a detailed mixed-use development.The City Council refused THFs proposal.

City Council directed staff to develop a second RFP to entice developers to do residential in-fill

housing with no commercial development.

March 2004An RFP was published seeking proposals for in-fill single-family housing.

March 2004Kinder Construction Inc. submited a proposal in response to the RFP.

June 2004 Kinder Construction Inc. rescinded its proposal.

August 2004

The City Council held a special workshop to hear from the residents of the Hadley

Township neighborhood.

September 2004The City Council voted to prepare a comprehensive RFP on the Hadley

Township neighborhood.

February thru May 2005 The City Council held visioning sessions to work on the preparation of

the new RFP.


7/53


June 2005 The Citys Hadley Township Redevelopment Area RFP was released. To further

encourage developers to pick up the RFP, a letter outlining the proposal was sent to over 80

developers and home builders along with a copy of the advertisement.

September 2005The City received five (5) proposals:

Conrad Properties Corporation, Wolfe Properties, L.L.C. and Forest City Ratner Enterprises; Michelson Commercial Realty & Development, LLC and Heine & Croghan Architects, Inc.

(collectively, Michelson);

Mills Properties, Inc.;

THF Realty, Inc., The Jones Company, Fischer & Frichtel and Mayer Homes, affiliated as theBricktown Development Company; and

QuikTrip.

December 2005Public presentation of the proposals and City Council interviews were held.

January 2006 A Public Open House allowed residents the opportunity to review each proposal

and ask questions of each development team. Residents were asked to complete a questionnaire,

giving the City feedback based on resident review of the three plans.

February 2006The City Council selected the Michelson proposal.

March thru May 2006- TIF Commission meeting was held.

June 7 and June 14, 2006- TIF Commission Public Hearing was held.

July 12, 2006- (Bill No. 5126 approved) - Designated a portion of the City as a Redevelopment

Area and finding that such area was a blighted area under the Real Property Tax Increment

Allocation Redevelopment Act; approved the Redevelopment Plan for the Hadley TownshipRedevelopment Area; and approved a Redevelopment Project for Redevelopment Project Area 1.

October 16, 2006 - (Bill No. 5143 approved) - Authorized the execution of a Redevelopment

Agreement with Michelson.

October 15, 2008 The City met with affected residents and property owners to request their

feedback regarding Michelsons failure to acquire property as required in the Redevelopment

Agreement.

January 2009 Michelson advised the City that it is unable to move forward with project.

February 27, 2009TheCity sent out a new Hadley Township Redevelopment Area Request For

Proposals (RFP).

May 29, 2009 The City received one proposal from Gateway Real Estate Partners titled United

Plaza at the Heights.The developer and City agreed that the developer must secure project

financing before formal discussions could begin.

February 16, 2010The City signed a preliminary funding agreement with United Plaza, LLC.


8/53


March 15, 2010The City terminated the Michelson Redevelopment Agreement and selected

United Plaza, LLC as the preferred developer. The City Council authorized City Staff to begin

negotiating a new Redevelopment Agreement.

November 30, 2010The City terminated its relationship with United Plaza, LLC.

February 8, 2011The City met with multiple developers, planners, and economic development

agencies. There was no interest by developers in the Area as it was defined. City Staff recommended

amending the Redevelopment Plan and reducing the Redevelopment Area.

September 6, 2011The City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan and Area.

January 9, 2012The City issued a new Request For Proposals (RFP) for the amended

Redevelopment Area.

February 23, 2012Three proposals were submitted for City consideration. Both Menards and

Costco submitted proposal for the southern Hadley Area. Pace Properties submitted a proposal for

northern Hadley area, south of Dale Avenue.

April 2, 2012The City selected Menards and Pace Properties as preferred developers for the

Hadley Township Redevelopment Area.

September 14, 2012Pace withdrew its proposal for development of the Hadley Township

Redevelopment Area. Menards continued its project.

December 3, 2012Menards and the City executed a Preliminary Funding Agreement to begin

formal negotiations for the Menards Hadley project.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTThe Redevelopment Area occupies a portion of the City once known as the Rannells Home Farm,

a large family-owned farm dating to the post-Civil War era. In the early twentieth century, the

Evans-Howard Fire Brick Company established a refractory at the southwest corner of Hanley

and Eager Roads. The brickyard labor force established the semi-rural character of the

neighborhood that was to persist until after World War II. A segregated (Old) Lincoln Elementary

School was opened to students in 1911 to serve the residents of the neighborhood. It was replaced

in 1932. The latter structure still exists as a portion of the Richmond Terrace retirement

community just east of the Area.

The City was incorporated in 1913 and Hadley Township was annexed in 1918. The Lincoln

Terrace subdivision was platted in 1925 and home construction commenced along Banneker and

Stockard Avenues. Elinor Place was platted in 1928, but developed slowly, due in large part to the

absence of convenient streetcar transit into the City of St. Louis and the onset of the Great

Depression.


9/53


Following World War II, enhanced automobile access provided a boost to home construction,

filling in the established subdivisions and the vacant land. Highway 40 (the Daniel Boone

Expressway) was completed north of the Redevelopment Area in the late 1950s(after a rebuilding

completed in 2009, the highway now has an average daily traffic count of over 173,000 vehicles).The highway fostered new commercial development along Hanley Road. As commercial

development began to encroach on the existing residential neighborhood, it impacted the

Redevelopment Area and helped to establish its current character. THE HEIGHTS, a 73,000

square foot Community Center and Memorial Library north of the Area on Dale Avenue, opened

in 2001.

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT

The Redevelopment Area contains approximately 17.2 acres, excluding rights-of-way. Nearly48% of the Area contains vacant land or land that is occupied by vacant buildings (see Existing

Land Use map). Single family residential represents the primary active use in the Area. Residential

uses represent roughly 64% of the land in the Area. The balance of the Area is comprised of a

variety of uses including office commercial (10%) and institutional/government (9%).

EXISTING LAND USEIN THE HADLEY TOWNSHIP SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AREAUSE OCCUPIED

SQ. FT.

% OF

TOTAL

VACANT

SQ. FT.

% OF

TOTALTOTAL

SQ. FT.% OF

TOTALSingle Family 277,948 37% 170,656 23% 448,604 60%

Three-Family 0 0% 30,800 4% 30,800 4 %

Residential Subtotal 277,948 37 201,456 27 479,404 64

Institutional/Government 69,840 9 0 0 69,840 9

Vacant Land 0 0 129,439 17 129,439 17

Commercial Office 46,568 6 25,815 4 72,383 10

TOTAL 394,356 52 356,710 48 751,066 100Source: St. Louis County and Development Strategies


10/53


Commercial office and institutional development is primarily concentrated along Hanley Road.

The balance of the Redevelopment Area contains residential development and vacant land.

Within the Redevelopment Area, there are a total of 74 single family residences and two three-

family buildings. The recent field survey of the Redevelopment Area found 30 of the single familyresidences and both of the three-family buildings to be vacant.

There is a total of 46,568 square feet of land occupied by office commercial space in the Area.


11/53


EXISTING ZONINGAs part of the ongoing efforts to redevelop the Redevelopment Area, all of the property was

zoned PDM Planned Development Mixed Usein 2008.


12/53


NEIGHBORING DEVELOPMENTThe Redevelopment Area is surrounded by a variety of uses. To the north is THE HEIGHTS

complex and residential neighborhoods that lie within the City of Richmond Heights. Residential

neighborhoods are also located to the east. To the south is the 450,000 square foot Maplewood

Commons Shopping Center, which includes a number of big box stores and inline shops, as

well as restaurants. To the west is a mix of commercial and residential developments, including

the residential and retail Hanley Station development and the Home Depot in the City of

Brentwood.


13/53


DATA GATHERING METHODOLOGYThis study of the Redevelopment Area has been conducted and complies with the specific

requirements of Sections 353.020 and 523.274.1, RSMo, as amended (see Appendix B for map

parcels and locator numbers in the Redevelopment Area).

Fieldwork was performed during February 2013. Each parcel and building was inspected from the

exterior and rated by Development Strategies personnel experienced in such evaluations. The

occupancy of all buildings and land was also catalogued. In addition, a visual inspection was made

of the condition of all streets, curbs, and sidewalks in the Redevelopment Area.

Real estate tax assessments for 2007 and 2012 were obtained from records of the St. Louis County

Assessors Office. This allowed aggregate tax assessments to be calculated for the Redevelopment

Area and comparisons to be made where appropriate. Appendix B contains each parcels tax

assessment along with a compilation of factors describing relevant conditions and related data.

In addition, data regarding ownership, parcel size, building square feet, number of residential units,

date of construction, and existing zoning were obtained from real estate information available

from St. Louis County. The City provided additional information regarding crime statistics, traffic

accidents, and taxes.


14/53


2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSSUMMARYThis document undertakes, first, to identify those particular factors that might constitute and

contribute to an overall, area-wide blighted condition and then, second, to make an objectivedetermination whether or not those factors in aggregate justify a finding that the Redevelopment

Area is blighted under the provisions of the Urban Redevelopment Corporations Law, Chapter

353, RSMo, as amended (Chapter 353), and Section 523.274.1 RSMo.

Section 353.020(2) of Chapter 353 defines a blighted area as,

thatthe portions of the City for which the legislative authority of that City shall determine that,

by reason of age, obsolescence, inadequate or outmoded design or physical deterioration,

have become economic and social liabilities, and that such conditions are conducive to ill

health, transmission of disease, crime or inability to pay reasonable taxes.

The Redevelopment Area has already been found to be blighted in July 2006 (Ordinance 4991)

under Section 99.805(1), RSMo, as amended and in May 2010 (Ordinance 5240) under Section

353.020(2). Despite the former eligibility of these portions of the Redevelopment Area for

application of state-enabled redevelopment powers, conditions persist in the Area that contribute

to blight. The earlier intended and needed levels of reinvestment in new construction and

rehabilitation did not occur and the Area continues to manifest an array of blighted conditions.

Based on the research conducted by Development Strategiesstaff and information obtained from

various records of St. Louis County and the City, the Redevelopment Area is clearly blighted by

reason of age, obsolescence, inadequate or outmoded design or physical deterioration, has become

an economic and social liability, and such conditions are conducive to ill health, transmission of

disease, crime or inability to pay reasonable taxes. A preponderance of the Redevelopment Area is

blighted per Section 523.274.1. Key factors in reaching this determination of blight are summarized

and described in greater detail in the following sections of this report.

Age of Existing Buildings

The stock of buildings in the Redevelopment Area is aging, particularly the residential structures,which comprise over 90% of all buildings. Nearly 76% of the buildings in the Area were

constructed prior to 1963, making them at least 50 years old, and 81% were constructed more than

35 years ago, which is generally used as a criteria for identifying older buildings that are likely to

experience electrical and mechanical problems, as well as a tendency for gradual overall

deterioration, unless they are very well maintained and updated regularly. This is clearly the case in

the Area.


15/53


ObsolescenceDevelopment in the majority of the Redevelopment Area was determined to be obsolete because:

Nearly 48% of all parcels in the Area are either vacant (primarily due to demolitions of

dilapidated buildings) or contain vacant buildings, and are therefore no longer supporting viable

development.

56% of the parcels do not meet contemporary standards for their current residential or

commercial use or zoning.

Obsolete infrastructure does not support modern residential or commercial development.

Inadequate or Outmoded DesignMuch of the existing public infrastructure and private development in the Redevelopment Area is

inadequate or outmoded as represented by:

The functionally outmoded and inadequate street system which inhibits needed modern

redevelopment, internal circulation, and is frequented by streets that dead-end without adequate

space for cars or emergency vehicles to turn around.

An outmoded and inadequate pattern of aging and limited commercial development along the

increasingly important Hanley Road commercial corridor.

Missing or inadequate sidewalks that inhibit pedestrian circulation, particularly for disabled

individuals, and are not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Lack of storm sewers for portions of the Redevelopment Area. Based on site visits to the

Area by staff of Development Strategies, two Area streets are not equipped with sewers toaccommodate storm water runoffBooker Place and the western portion of Elinor Avenue.

Inadequate building foundations, given the potential for subsidence resulting from former clay

mining operations in the Redevelopment Area. Although Hampton Creek was channelized, two

Area properties are at least partially within the 100-year floodplain of the creek.

Physical DeteriorationAs identified by the field study conducted by Development Strategies, there is physical

deterioration throughout the Redevelopment Area as illustrated by: The large number of buildings that are classified as being in poor condition (52%) or fair

condition (32%).

Over three-quarters of the streets are classified as being in either poor condition (28%) or

fair condition (58%).

Where sidewalks are provided in the Redevelopment Area, the majority are classified as being in

either poor condition (8%) or fair condition (86%).


16/53


The site conditions (private sidewalks, parking areas, fencing, landscaped areas, etc.) of the vast

majority of the parcels are classified as being in poor condition (54%) or fair condition

(45%).

Economic LiabilityAs a result of the previously mentioned blighting factors, the Redevelopment Area is an economic

liability as reflected by:

The underutilization of the Redevelopment Area given its prime location near the Hanley Road

and I-64 interchange.

The existing vacancy in the Redevelopment Area, which inhibits new investment and creates a

burden on the City.

The significant number of delinquent taxes for properties in the Redevelopment Area.

Social LiabilityThe blighting factors also create a social liability due to:

The drain on existing city resources and the inability to generate financial resources for city

services.

The ongoing decline in residential units and owner occupancy.

Hazardous conditions resulting from dead-end streets without adequate turning space for

emergency vehicles.

CrimeThe aforementioned blighting conditions have created an environment that is conducive to

promoting crime as indicated from City police records for 2009 through 2012 that generally reflect a

higher rate of crime in the Redevelopment Area as opposed to the City as a whole.

Inability to Pay Reasonable TaxesThe Redevelopment Area has failed to attract new investment and sufficient reinvestment in existing

buildings and infrastructure, and the existing development is outdated and obsolete. As a result, the

City has not been able to capitalize on the Areas location alongthe I-64 commercial corridor to

generate needed taxes to provide city services to residents. In addition, over 29% of the taxable

properties in the Redevelopment Area are currently delinquent in paying real estate taxes.


17/53


FINDING OF BLIGHT

As summarized above and discussed in detail in the balance of this report, the data overwhelmingly

demonstrates that conditions in the Redevelopment Area are above the established threshold

standards for blight under Chapter 353 and that a preponderance of the Redevelopment Area is

blighted per Section 523.274.1, RSMo. The data supports a finding that the Redevelopment Area is

blightedby reason of age, obsolescence, inadequate or outmoded design or physical deterioration,

has become an economic and social liability, and that such conditions are conducive to ill health,

transmission of disease, crime or inability to pay reasonable taxes. The fact that the Area was found

to be blighted in 2006 under Section 99.805(1), RSMo and in 2010 under Section353.020 (2), and

is still blighted today, demonstrates the depth and long-term nature of conditions that require

effective publicintervention through state-enabled redevelopment powers to reverse the negative

course of economic, social and physical decline that is further documented here.

Looking beyond the individual factors of blight described here, it is important to understand thecollective impact of these factors. The Redevelopment Area is clearly not contributing to the

economic and social welfare of the City and its residents. It is an area of extensive economic

underutilization, particularly given its potential to capitalize on the considerable benefits of its

location near the recently enhanced I-64 and Hanley Road interchange.

The high costs of assembling efficient development sites from lots under different and often

absentee ownership, demolishing or extensively rehabilitating old and functionally obsolete

buildings, effectively precludes, in most instances, investment in redevelopment that capitalizes on

the location assets that the Area enjoys. Without access to the powers of redevelopment underChapter 353, the Area will likely continue to be economically underutilized and fail to produce

fiscal and economic benefits necessary to contribute to the long term viability of the City.


18/53


3.0 BLIGHTING FACTORSAs described below, the Redevelopment Area suffers from a variety of blighting factors including

age of development, obsolescence, inadequate or outmoded design and physical deterioration,

which have become economic and social liabilities, and such conditions are conducive to ill health,transmission of disease, crime or the inability to pay reasonable taxes. These blighting factors are

in evidence in a preponderance of the Redevelopment Area, as illustrated on the following

Blighting Conditions map.

Appendix B provides a summary of a number of blighting factors on a parcel by parcel basis. A

predominance of the parcels (91%) and acreage (82%) in the Redevelopment Area has at least one

blighting factor present, and 82% of the parcels and 73% of the acreage contain multiple blighting

conditions. A separate appendix provides a photograph and conditions survey of each property.


19/53


BLIGHTING FACTORS FOR PARCELSIN THE HADLEY TOWNSHIP SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AREA

Blighting Factors Parcels Parcels SF of Parcels of Total SFMultiple 85 82% 550,744 73%One 9 9% 65,812 9%

None 9 9% 134,510 18%

Total 103 751,066Source: Development Strategies

AGE OF BUILDINGSAlthough the age of a building does not automatically constitute a blighted condition, older

structures, unless well maintained and updated regularly, tend to have problems with their

electrical and mechanical systems, and often suffer from deferred maintenance, functionalobsolescence, and gradual overall deterioration. Such is the case with the majority of the buildings

in the Redevelopment Area. The stock of buildings in the Area is aging, particularly the residential

structures, which comprise nearly 92% of all buildings. Over half of the structures in the Area

were constructed prior to World War II. Over 73% of the buildings in the Area were constructed

by 1960, making them at least 50 years old, and 81% were constructed more than 35 years ago,

which is generally used as a criteria for identifying older buildings that are likely to experience

electrical and mechanical problems, and a tendency for gradual overall deterioration. No new

construction has occurred during the last 13 years.

DATE OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGSIN THE HADLEY TOWNSHIP SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AREAYear Built Res. CumulativeRes. Off.

Com.CumulativeOff. Com. Inst.

ovt

CumulativeInst.ovt

Total CumulativeTotal

1920 -- 1930 40 53% - 0% - 0% 40 48%

1931 -- 1945 3 57% - 0% % 3 52%

1946 -- 1960 16 78% 2 33% - % 18 73%

1961 -- 1975 5 84% 1 17% % 6 81%

1976 -- 1990 5 91% 2 50% - % 7 90%

1991 -- 1999 7 100% 100% 1 100% 8 100%

Total 76 5 1 82% of Total 92% 7% 1% 100%

Source: Development Strategies and St. Louis County


20/53



21/53


OBSOLESCENCEVacant Buildings and PropertyGiven the character of the buildings in the Redevelopment Area, many have outlived their

usefulness or lost their functional utility. This is illustrated by the number of buildings that are

vacant or only partially utilized today. Of the 82 existing buildings in the Redevelopment Area, 34

are currently vacant.

In addition, a number of buildings that were in poor or dilapidated condition, and were

functionally obsolete, have been demolished. Today, there are 20 parcels of vacant land in the

Area. When combined with parcels that currently have vacant buildings, 48% of all parcels in the

Area are no longer supporting viable development.

Obsolete Parcel SizeThe parcels in the Redevelopment Area were platted many years ago and 58 parcels (56%) do not

meet the current minimum zoning standards for their current use 5,000 square feet for

residential and 10,000 square feet for commercial development.

Obsolete InfrastructureThe Redevelopment Area was primarily platted approximately 85 years ago and has not

significantly changed since that time. Subsequently, the streets and storm water drainage are nolonger capable of meeting the modern standards for a residential neighborhood or commercial

development. The problem has been compounded by the ever increasing traffic volume on Hanley

Road. The result is an obsolete residential neighborhood and an obsolete commercial Hanley

Road frontage that is incapable of meeting modern standards without redevelopment.

INADEQUATE OR OUTMODED DESIGN

Outmoded and Inadequate Design Street LayoutThe Redevelopment Area suffers from an access and circulation system that does not

accommodate contemporary traffic movements and volumes. Of particular concern are the

streets in the Area that terminate abruptly without adequate means of turning around for cars or

emergency vehicles. This condition exists on Stockard Avenue to the south of Elinor Avenue and

Booker Place.


22/53


Compounding the access and circulation problems in the Area are the interruptions to the grid

pattern of streets. Contemporary planning emphasizes the importance of a functional grid street

pattern to provide multiple means of access for residents of an area, as well as emergency vehicles,particularly in an urbanized city like Richmond Heights. However, there are no streets internal to

the Area that can accommodate north-south vehicular movement that connect to a major east-

west street. Furthermore, Elinor Avenue is the only internal street that accommodates east-west

movement.


23/53


Outdated Hanley Road Commercial Corridor DevelopmentOver time,Hanley Roadbetween Manchester Road and Highway 40/I-64 has become an

important commercial corridor in the continually expanding commercial node which has formed

along Highway 40/Interstate 64 between Brentwood Boulevard and Hanley Road. Into the 1960s

Hanley Road was only a two lane road which terminated at Manchester Road. Much of the land

fronting on Hanley Road within the Redevelopment Area was still in residential use. With the

completion of the U.S. Highway 40 and Hanley Road interchange in the early 1960s, the opening

of Missouri Route 725 (now Interstate 170) in 1967, and the expansion of Hanley Road to four

lanes by 1970, the pattern of development in the Redevelopment Area began to change, primarily

with the addition of new office space, much of which remains today. In the late 1970s, Hanley

Road was improved as a County arterial with four lanes extending north to Carson Road and

south to Laclede Station Road. Recently, major improvements have been completed to I-64, which

include enhancements to the Hanley Road interchange. Today, Hanley Road has an average

weekday traffic count in excess of 52,000 vehicles with the likelihood that traffic will increase, now

that the I-64 improvements have been completed. As a response to the ever increasing traffic

volume, it has been proposed by the Hanley Road Corridor Study* that Hanley Road should be

expanded to three lanes in both directions with turning lanes. This will clearly impact the existing

development fronting on Hanley Road.

In response to the evolving improvements and importance of Hanley Road, neighboring

municipalities have promoted significant commercial redevelopment. The mixed-use Meridian

and Hanley Station developments, as well as a new Home Depot, were constructed along the west

side of Hanley Road, opposite the Redevelopment Area, in the City of Brentwood. Immediately

south of the Redevelopment Area, the Maplewood Commons retail project was completed in the

City of Maplewood.

However, while new vital commercial development has grown up along Hanley Road to the west

and south of the Redevelopment Area, the commercial development that currently exists along

Hanley Road within the Redevelopment Area is obsolete, has been developed over time in an

uncoordinated and piecemeal manner, and is often in conflict with its neighboring residential uses.

__________________

*The Hanley Road Corridor Study was prepared by Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade &Douglas, Inc. for the St. LouisCounty Department of Highways and Traffic, the City of Brentwood, the City of Maplewood, and the City ofRichmond Heights in 2004.


24/53


The piecemeal manner in which structures have been constructed over a 40 year period has also

led to functional problems that are not reflective of modern commercial development. Of

particular concern are the multiple curb cuts that exist along the very heavily travelled Hanley

Road. The Hanley Road Corridor Studyforesaw the need to eliminate most of the curb cuts to

facilitate traffic movement and increase safety. The study also called for allowing only right-in andright-out movements where traffic signals were not provided. In addition, the manner in which

Hanley Road curves between Bruno Avenue and Elinor Avenue further compounds the safety

problem presented by multiple curb cuts and lack of traffic signals at several street intersections

with Hanley Road.

Finally, there is inadequate buffering provided between the commercial uses along Hanley Road

and the residential neighborhood to the east, which creates a number of awkward and

inappropriate conditions. Of particular concern is the impact on the residences on the east side of

Banneker Avenue, which also functions as a service drive for the Richmond Heights Public Works

Department.

Lack of Adequate Sidewalks and Building AccessibilityMany blocks in the Redevelopment Area contain sidewalks that are in poor or fair condition,

or are not continuous. In addition, there are intersections in the Area where there are no curb cuts

or the curb cuts do not comply with ADA requirements. As a result, the Redevelopment Area

inhibits pedestrian movement and is not in compliance with the requirements of the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Two of the office/commercial buildings within the Redevelopment Area are not in compliance

with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regarding barrier free access to primary building

entry.

In addition only one single family home of the 76 residential structures in the Redevelopment

Area provides an accessible route to the front entry for disabled individuals.

Lack of Adequate Storm Water SewersBased on site visits to the Area by staff of Development Strategies, the following streets are not

equipped with sewers to accommodate storm water runoffBooker Place and the western

portion of Elinor Avenue.


25/53


Inadequate Building FoundationsAs previously noted in the discussion of the historical development of the Area, clay mining was

prevalent in the Redevelopment Area and adjacent neighborhoods. According to the Blight

Analysis of the Redevelopment Area that was completed by PGAV in 2006 (the 2006 Blight

Study), information provided by the environmental engineering firm of Geotechnology indicates

that there is a mine shaft in the vicinity of Elinor and Banneker Avenues. The 2006 Blight Study

goes on to state that:

Typically, there are clay mining tunnels that will extend outward from the mine shaft. At

this time, these have not been geologically explored and mapped for the Area, but it has

been the experience of other neighboring developments that there are extensive clay

mining tunnels throughout this part of the County. The Citys Community Center, the

Home Depot project across Hanley Road, and the Hanley Station project by MLPInvestments, also across the street on Hanley Road, have all experienced problems during

construction with clay mines. The potential safety problem for existing uses is subsidence,

which can occur suddenly. For new construction, the problem is ameliorated through the

use of more extensive foundation systems. Though this adds to the cost of construction, it

can protect the building from subsidence. Most older structures, however, will not have

been constructed with such extensive foundation systems, including both the commercial

buildings along Hanley Road as well as the homes throughout the Area.( page 3.7)

FloodingHampton Creek was channelized by the Metropolitan Sewer District in the 1990s on the eastern

boundary of the Area. However, according to FEMA mapping, two properties in the

Redevelopment Area remain in the 100-year floodplain of the creek. The impacted properties

include a vacant three-family structure and a vacant lot.

PHYSICAL DETERIORATIONThe buildings, sites, streets, and sidewalks in the Redevelopment Area exhibit varying levels of

physical deterioration. Taken together, they contribute to conditions that are both unsafe and

unattractive and thereby constitute a deterrent to attracting new quality development in the Area.

Condition of BuildingsOf the Redevelopment Areas 82 buildings, 84% were found to require either major or

moderate repairs, meaning they have various levels of physical deterioration that contribute to

the blighting conditions in the Area.


26/53


The condition of all structures in the Redevelopment Area is noted on the following table and

Condition of Buildings map.

EXISTING BUILDING CONDITION

IN THE HADLEY TOWNSHIP SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AREA

Building ConditionNumber ofBuildings

of TotalBuildings Cumulative of Total

Major Deterioration(1) 43 52% 52%

Moderate Deterioration(2) 26 32% 84%

Minor Deterioration(3) 13 16% 100%

TOTAL 82(1) Major Numerous critical structural and/or secondary building component deficiencies apparent which could only be

corrected with major building renovation, rehabilitation, or repairs, making the building potentially infeasible torehabilitate.

(2) Moderate Multiple deficiencies in secondary building components or problem with a structural building componentthat could be corrected with major repair work.

(3) Minor Defects in one or more secondary building components that could be corrected with minor repair work.

Source: Development Strategies, field inspection, February 2013


27/53



28/53


Condition of Existing StreetsThe condition of the existing streets in the Redevelopment Area also has a blighting influence.

Over three-quarters of the streets are classified as being in either poor condition (28%) or fair

condition (58%). The condition of a street relates to the street surface and adjacent curbs and

gutters. It does not consider issues of age or functional obsolescence per se. The only street

found to be in good condition is at the southern edge of the Redevelopment AreaWest

Bruno Avenue.

The overall condition of the streets in the Redevelopment Area is summarized in the following

table and detailed Rights-of-way map.

CONDITIONS OF EXISTING STREETS


Street Condition Lineal Feet of Total of TotalPoor (1) 1,500 28%

Fair (2) 3,070 58% 86%

Good (3) 750 14% 100%

TOTAL 5,320(1) Poor Potholes, uneven surface, lack of maintenance with former surface revealed, with broken or no curbing and

inlets that are damaged, inoperable or not in place required.

(2) Fair Patched or cracked surface or rippled asphalt, with some damage to curbing and inlets.

(3) Good Generally smooth surface with intact curbing and inlets. Some minor maintenance required.

Source: Development Strategies, field inspection, February 2013

Condition of SidewalksAnother problem in the Redevelopment Area is the lack of adequate sidewalks. Where sidewalks

are provided, only 6% are classified as being in good condition. These sidewalks are primarily

located at the western edge of the Redevelopment Area along Hanley Road. The overall condition

of the sidewalks in the Area is summarized on the following table and illustrated on the Rights-

of-Way Conditions map.


29/53


CONDITIONS OF EXISTING SIDEWALKS


Sidewalk Condition Lineal Feet of Total of TotalPoor (1) 605 8% 8%

Fair (2) 6,660 86% 94%

Good (3) 450 6% 100%

TOTAL 7,715(1)Poor Broken or uneven surface.

(2) Fair Some cracking with uneven surfaces.

(3) Good Generally smooth surface with intact curbing and inlets. Some minor maintenance required.Source: Development Strategies, field inspection, February 2013

Site ImprovementsThe Redevelopment Area suffers from a variety of deteriorated site improvements (private

walkways, driveways, parking lots, fencing and yard maintenance) that significantly detract from

the safety and appearance of the Area and the ability to attract and retain new investment. As

indicated by the following table, just 1% of the parcels are classified as having good site

conditions.

CONDITION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTSIN THE HADLEY TOWNSHIP SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AREA

Condition Number of Parcels Total Parcels SF of Parcels of SF of ParcelsPoor 56 54% 330,319 44%

Fair 46 45% 414,507 55%

Good 1 1% 6,240 1%

Total 103 751,066Source: Development Strategies, field inspection, February 2013


30/53


ECONOMIC LIABILITYAs a result of the blighting factors previously discussed, the Redevelopment Area constitutes an

economic liability. The City is a mature city that is surrounded by other cities and therefore has no

opportunities to expand its corporate limits. Subsequently, the only opportunity for economic

growth that is possible is through redevelopment of existing areas and buildings. Given the

significant vacancy of the existing buildings and land and the location near the I-64 and Hanley

Road interchange, the Redevelopment Area is clearly underutilized and significantly short of the

economic benefit it could provide for the City and other taxing jurisdictions.


31/53


The economic decline in the Redevelopment Area is illustrated by the extensive vacancy of

residential units and commercial space. Almost half (45%) of the residential units in the Area are

vacant and 48% of the office commercial space is currently vacant. The high vacancy in the

Redevelopment Area tends to foster an image of abandonment and decline that typically results in

an unwillingness of property owners to invest in their property, which further exacerbates thesituation. Vacant properties are also a burden on municipalities that are left with the problem of

seeing that vacant buildings are adequately secured and that vacant lots are appropriately

maintained through a management program with property owners or often their own resources

and efforts.

The vacancy and ongoing decline of the Redevelopment Area is also creating problems in

delinquent taxes, which is creating an economic liability. According to the records of the County

Assessor, there are 26 properties (29% of taxable parcels) that are currently delinquent on their

real estate taxes. Of this total, 13 are two years delinquent and 7 are three years delinquent.

SOCIAL LIABILITYAnother indicator of social decline in the Area is the reduction of the number of residential units

through demolitions and the increasing shift from owner occupancy to rental. As indicated by the

following table, the number of residential units in the Redevelopment Area has continued to

decline since 2000. The owner occupancy in the Redevelopment Area has also declined.

Numerous studies over the years have indicated that home ownership is a key factor in providing

stability for neighborhoods and the maintenance of property1. As is the case in the

Redevelopment Area, neighborhoods tend to decline when they are actively in transition from

owner occupancy to renter occupancy, particularly where there is a large amount of absentee

owners of the rental property.

1Chasing the American Dream: New Perspectives on Affordable Homeownership, Edited by William Rohe and

Harry C. Watson, 2007.

Home and Neighborhoods: A Guide to Comprehensive Revitalization Techniques, U.S. Departmentof Housing

and Urban Development, 2004.

Social Benefits and Costs of Homeownership, Affordable Housing Issues, Volume XI, Number 3, April 2000.

Homeownership and Neighborhood Stability, Housing Policy Debate, Volume 7, Issue 1, William M. Rohe and

Leslie S. Stewart, 1996.


32/53


OWNER AND RENTER OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL UNITSIN THE HADLEY TOWNSHIP SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AREA

Occupied Units 2000(1) Total 2010(1) Total 2013(2) TotalOwner Occupied 40 53% 29 54% 19 43%Renter Occupied 34 47% 25 46% 25 57%

TOTAL 74 54 44(1) U.S. Census Bureau

(2) Development Strategies field investigation February 2013

In addition, as previously noted, almost half (45%) of the residential units and 48% of the office

commercial space in the Redevelopment Area are currently vacant. In neighborhoods where this

type of high vacancy occurs, there typically is an increase in fires, vandalism, and health problems

associated with rodents and disease.

Finally, the poor vehicular circulation in the Redevelopment Area, particularly the dead-end streets

without adequate space for turning movements by fire and other emergency vehicles, creates

hazardous conditions for many of the residents of the Area. This problem cannot be easily

addressed without significant cost and disruption to many of the existing residences.

CRIME

The blighting factors in the Redevelopment Area discussed above are conducive to promotingincreased crime. According to the records of the City, over the past four years there has been 1

murder (the only one in the City), 18 reports of assaults, 13 reports of burglary, 10 reports of

larceny, 2 reports of motor vehicle theft, and 8 reports of destruction of property.

As indicated by the following table, based on available information from the Richmond Heights

Police Department, with the exception of robberies and thefts, crime activity in the Redevelopment

Area is higher than the City as a whole. Crimes against people, such as murder and assaults, are

significantly above the city average in the Redevelopment Area. Burglaries are also high. It is also

important to note that statistics on thefts are somewhat skewed because of the many petty thefts,

such as shoplifting, credit fraud and bad checks, at large commercial areas, such as the St. LouisGalleria.


33/53


CRIME REPORTS 2009 2012

IN RICHMOND HEIGHTS AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA

Richmond Heights (1) Redevelopment Area(2)Event Total Per Capita Total Per CapitaMurder 1 .000 1 .007

Robberies 30 .003 0 .000

Assaults 269 .003 18 .138

Burglaries 165 .019 13 .094

Thefts 2,670 (3) .310 10 .072

Auto Thefts 106 .012 2 .014

(1) Based on 2010 population of 8,603

(2) Based on 2010 population of 188

(3) Large number of thefts include shoplifting at regional shopping mall

Source: City of Richmond Heights and Development Strategies

INABILITY TO PAY REASONABLE TAXES

The failure of the Redevelopment Area to attract new investment and sufficient reinvestment inexisting buildings and infrastructure, coupled with general obsolescence and decline of existing

development, has created a downward pressure on the ability of the businesses and property owners

in the area to pay reasonable taxes. The fact that nearly a third of the parcels and nearly half of the

acreage in the Redevelopment Area are either vacant or contain vacant buildings represents a major

loss of tax revenue for the City and other taxing jurisdictions, which include the State of Missouri,

St. Louis County, the Maplewood Richmond Heights School District, Metro, and the Regional Parks

and Recreation District.

The City has a 6% utility tax for all utilities except electric, which has a tax rate of 5.625%. The

rate is applied to both residential and commercial property. Therefore, the ongoing decline in the

number of residential units and the vacancy in both residential and commercial development

negatively impact the taxes that can be collected by the City to support needed services.

In addition, as noted previously, 26 of the 88 properties that are commercially or residentially

assessed are currently tax delinquent, which compounds the inability to collect reasonable taxes.


34/53


As indicated by the following table, the Redevelopment Area has also seen a significant decrease in

assessed value over the last five years, particularly with respect to the assessed value of

improvements. It is important to note that while the total assessed value of the Redevelopment

Area has decreased by 45 % since 2007, the total assessed value of the City of Richmond Heights

has only decreased by 7% during this same period.

CHANGE IN ASSESSED VALUE 2007 - 2012IN THE HADLEY TOWNSHIP SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AREA

Date Land Improvements Total2007 $420,750 $1,803,620 $2,225,690

2012 $553,850 $968,790 $1,529,710

% change +24% -86% -45%

Source: St. Louis CountyAssessors Office

The clear conclusion of this analysis of the Redevelopment Areas relative inability to pay

reasonable taxes is that it is failing to contribute to the economic and fiscal wellbeing of the City,

County, school district, and other taxing jurisdictions. As a largely obsolete residential and

commercial district, the Area is economically underutilized and is not producing the taxes to

contribute to economic growth and greater prosperity required to support public services and

public infrastructure required by the Citysresidents, businesses, and property owners. This is

despite the Areas strategic commercial location in the City and region. Effective application by the

City of state-enabled redevelopment powers, including Chapter 353, is needed to remove the

presence of the blighting conditions enumerated here, and capitalize on the assets associated with

the location of the Redevelopment Area.


35/53

APPENDIX A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF HANLEY TOWNSHIP SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT AREA


36/53

A tract of land being all of Lots 1 through 9, 9A, 10 through 67, 73 through 85, part of Lots

68 through 72, all of Alabama Avenue, Booker Place, McKinley Avenue, Aberdeen Avenue

and Jones Avenue all in Lincoln Terrace as recorded in Plat Book 22 Page 14; being all ofLots 37 through 46 of Lincoln Terrace Addition as recorded in Plat Book 20 Page 94; being

all of Lots 6 through 26, and part of Elinor Avenue all in Elinor Place as recorded in Plat

Book 26 Page 8; being all of Lots 1 and 2 of the Resubdivision of part of Lot 57 of RannellsSubdivision of the Home Farm as recorded in Plat Book 312 Page 100; also being part ofLots 55 and 57 of Rannells Home Farm Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 9 Page 30 all

in Township 45 North, Range 6 East of the 5th

P.M., in the City of Richmond Heights, St.

Louis County, Missouri and being more particularly described as follows:

Beginning at the intersection of the east right-of-way line of Hanley Road with the north

right-of-way line of West Bruno Avenue; thence along said east right-of-way line of HanleyRoad N254410W 155.64 feet to a point; thence N260523W 83.99 feet to a point;

thence along a curve deflecting to the left having a radius of 353.25 feet , an arc length of

127.37 feet, a chord course of N131944W 126.68 feet to a point; thence N000821E

21.75 feet to a point at the intersection of said east right-of-way line of Hanley Road with thesouth right-of-way line of Alabama Avenue (50 feet wide); thence along said south right-of-

way line of Alabama Avenue S895438E 29.81 feet to a point; thence leaving said south

right-of-way line N000158E 50.00 feet to the intersection of the north right-of-way line ofsaid Alabama Avenue with the east right-of-way line of Booker Place (40 feet wide); thence

along said east right-of-way line of Booker Place N000158E 191.00 feet to the northwest

corner of Lot 79 of Lincoln Terrace as recorded in Plat Book 22 Page 14; thence leaving said

east right-of-way line N895438W 40.00 feet to a point on the west right-of-way line ofBooker Place, also being the northeast corner of Lot 86 of Lincoln Terrace; thence leaving

said west right-of-way line along the north line of said Lot 86 N895438W 104.37 feet to

the northwest corner of said Lot 86, also being on the east right-of-way line of Hanley Road;

thence along said east right-of-way line along a curve deflecting to the right having a radiusof 301.46 feet, an arc length of 26.47 feet, a chord course of N022335W 26.46 feet to a

point; thence N000719E 254.02 feet to the intersection of said east right-of-way line of

Hanley Road with the south right-of-way line of Elinor Avenue (50 feet wide); thence alongsaid south right-of-way line of Elinor Avenue S895933E 358.09 feet to a point; thence

S895933E 50.00 feet to a point; thence S895933E 242.41 feet to a point; thence leaving

said south right-of-way line N002337W 50.00 feet to a point on the north right-of-wayline of Elinor Avenue; thence N002337W 140.88feet to a point; thence S895544E

564.56 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 6 of Elinor Place; thence along the east line of said

Lot 6 S000355W 140.25 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 6, also being on the northright-of-way line of Elinor Avenue; thence leaving said north right-of-way line

S000355W 50.00 feet to a point on the south right-of-way line of said Elinor Avenue;thence along said south right-of-way line S895933E 43.87 feet to the northeast corner of

Lot 26 of said Elinor Place; thence leaving said south right-of-way line along the east line of

said Lot 26 S000621W 140.93 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 26; thence along thesouth line of said Lot 26 N895941W 30.98 feet to the northeast corner of a tract of land

conveyed to Beyond Housing Inc. in Deed Book 12607 Page 872; thence leaving the south

line of said Lot 26 along the east line of said Beyond Housing Inc. tract S000240W140.13 feet to a point at the southeast corner of said Beyond Housing Inc. tract, also being on


37/53

the north right-of-way line of Jones Avenue (50 feet wide); thence along said north right-of-way line N895842W 342.67 feet to a point; thence leaving said north right -of-way line

S000343W 50.00 feet to the intersection of the south right-of-way line of Jones Avenue

with the west right-of-way line of Berkley Avenue (50 feet wide); thence along said west

right-of-way line of Berkley Avenue S000343W 551.43 feet to the intersection of saidwest right-of-way line with the north right-of-way line of West Bruno Avenue (60 feet wide);

thence along said north right-of-way line N895841W 213.15 feet to a point ; thence

N895841W 50.00 feet to a point; thence N895841W 212.00 feet to a point; thenceN895841W 50.00 feet to a point; thence N895841W 108.93 feet to the point of

beginning, containing 20.46 acres or 891,168 square feet. Subject to any and all easements,

restrictions, conditions, etc. of record.


38/53

APPENDIX B

PARCEL NUMBERS MAP AND PARCEL INFORMATION


39/53


40/53


41/53


42/53


43/53

APPENDIX C

PHOTOGRAPHS OF BLIGHTED CONDITIONS


44/53

Hadley Township South Redevelopment Area Blight Analysis Appendix C - 1

Vacant three family building in poor condition at 7929 Elinor Avenue

Vacant home with deteriorated roof, gutters and windows 1621 Stockard Avenue


45/53


Deteriorated public street lacking appropriate turn around 1600 block Stockard Avenue

Vacant, underutilized ground at 1618 and 1620 Stockard Avenue


46/53


Poor condition of fencing, lack of accessible entry at vacant home 1632 Stockard Avenue

Deteriorated site and building conditions at vacant home 1706 Stockard Avenue


47/53


Vacant home in poor condition constructed in 1923 1712 Stockard Avenue

Deteriorated condition of shared parking surface at 7927-7929 Jones Avenue


48/53


Deteriorated roof and guttering at vacant home 1707 Stockard Avenue

Poor condition of site and structure 1709 Stockard Avenue


49/53


Vacant and partially secured structure in poor condition at 1701 Stockard Avenue

Vacant and unsecured structure in poor condition at 1700 Banneker Avenue


50/53


Vacant home in deteriorating condition at 1629 Banneker Avenue

Vacant office commercial building at 1600 South Hanley Road


51/53


Lack of sidewalk on west side of 1600 block of Banneker Avenue

Deteriorated siding, guttering and windows at rear of 8030 Elinor Avenue


52/53


Occupied home with roof in deteriorated condition at 1712 Banneker Avenue

Lack of sidewalks and appropriate vehicle turn around 1600 block of Booker Place


53/53

Vacant, underutilized lots at the northwest corner of Alabama and Stockard Avenues

Richmond Heights, MO Blighting Study - Menards

Documents

Transcript of Richmond Heights, MO Blighting Study - Menards