×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

ZOUP Draft Description of District Standards March 2026

Review and comment on the draft Description of District Standards.

This document explains the individual district standards found in the District Standards document. 
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio

Comments

View all Cancel

Add comment

in reply to Sebastian's comment

Andrew Apr 17 2026 at 2:56PM on page 4

Suggestion
I agree with this. Though I understand the desire for buildings to engage with the streetscape, I recogize that energy efficiency standards make this a challenge especially on the north facade which wouldn't benefit from solar gains.

Sebastian Mar 28 2026 at 9:54PM on page 4

Suggestion
I agree that buildings should look nice from the street. Especially along the corridors, and that windows are a part of that equation. At the same time, windows are pretty energy inefficient. I would suggest a tradeoff-ratio between windows and exterior facade decoration up to some limit.

For example if the rule in an NA-Neighborhood is 15% window coverage on the first floor facing the street, I would up to 8% of that to be structural decoration.

We would have to make a definition for Structural Decoration though.

Alexander Mar 28 2026 at 1:21PM on page 4

Question
What about areas like Gravois Park where the a lot of historic housing is on hills next to the street? Will all of these existing buildings need to apply for variances?

Matthew Mar 27 2026 at 8:01PM on page 1

The city should not be mandating amenity space. That means higher rents and less housing. Let the people building the homes decide if their homes need amenity space or not.
in reply to Alex's comment

Dominick Mar 27 2026 at 9:38AM on page 4

I partially agree with this. Businesses and medium-large multi-unit buildings should have street-facing entrances as their primary entrance.

Small multi-unit buildings or SFHs should be allowed side/rear entrance without issue.

Dominick Mar 27 2026 at 9:28AM on page 1

Suggestion
Why? If a developer builds a building with few amenities so they can offer a lower rent that is their choice. It's also the choice of the person choosing to live there if they want to pay less rent for fewer/no amenities. I would rather we allow the folks building and living in the buildings to decide what amenities are needed.

Jack H Mar 26 2026 at 8:46PM on page 1

Suggestion
Having arbitrary maximum units per lot is weirdly restrictive. Why force someone through hoops to subdivide a lot and build 2 duplexes right next to each other when a quadplex on the same exact lot is easier in a lot of cases? I understand some few wealthy elite want only large lot single family homes, but if we're trying to rise above that, we should be logical and realistic about actual St. Louis housing

Alex Mar 26 2026 at 4:09PM on page 4

Suggestion
Why are side entrances discouraged? There are hundreds of historic homes in the City of St. Louis that have side entrances.
View all