Category: Preservation Board

Categories
Demolition Downtown Historic Preservation Preservation Board

Denial of "Original Restaurant" Building Demolition Permit Upheld

by Michael R. Allen


Photograph by author.

At last week’s meeting of the Preservation Board, the board considered the appeal of a Cultural Resources Office Staff denial of an application for demolition of a two-story commercial building downtown located at 2217-19 Olive Street. The board unanimously upheld the denial.

The owners of the building, Gary and Gail Andrews, have owned the building since 1977 but have failed to maintain the building according to city building codes. A section of the roof of the building collapsed several years ago, causing parapet damage, but the building is stable. The owners seek to to demolish the building, replacing it with a lawn and eventually a surface parking lot to serve a building that they own at 2206 Locust Street. (Read the CRO report here.)

The building is a contributing resource to a pending national historic district, the Olive and Locust Historic Business District. The nomination is awaiting final approval from the National Park Service. According to the nomination, prepared by Melinda Winchester:

The residential character of both Olive and Locust easily gave way to commercial activity, as many people converted homes into first floor shops with apartments above. An example of this is the building at 2217 Olive. Constructed as a home for Margaret Hilton in 1888, the first floor was converted into Walter C. Persons Photo Supplies Company in 1929 by William Duerback.

Examples of such conversion on Olive and Locust east of Jefferson are nearly extinct. The nomination does not identify a single other example of the converted residence within the historic district boundaries.

Once the building is listed on the National Register as part of the district, its rehabilitation will be eligible for state and federal historic rehabilitation tax credits. This building and others on the block have not been eligible for the tax credits before. With the availability of the credit, these buildings should be attractive investments.

I concur with Cultural Resources staff that replacement of a historic downtown building with a grassy lot substitutes a high land use with an inappropriately low land use.

Categories
Demolition Downtown Historic Preservation Hyde Park North St. Louis Preservation Board South St. Louis

UPDATED: Three Demolition Applications and One Appeal on Monday’s Preservation Board Agenda

by Michael R. Allen

UPDATED Monday, Sepetmber 24.

Three applications for demolition are on the final agenda for Monday’s meeting of the St. Louis Preservation Board. The permit applications are:

– 2868 Missouri Avenue in Benton Park (national and local historic district), owned by Craig Hamby & Brian Magill. A two-story corner commercial building, located across the street from the restaurant Yemanja Brasil, mostly collapsed last year. An adjacent building is stable, but the owner seeks to demolish it too. Application includes new construction.

– 4153 (owned by James and Betty Mitchell) and 4220-22 Martin Luther King Drive (owned by LRA) and 4224 Martin Luther King Drive (owned by Tommie Hampton) in The Ville. The buildings on Martin Luther King are brick commercial buildings. The building at 4222 Martin Luther King collapsed last month, perhaps causing damage to its neighbors.

There is one appeal of a staff denials:

– 2217-19 Olive Street downtown, owned by Gary and Gail Andrews. This is a two-story, flat-roofed brick commercial structure.

The meeting begins at 4:00 p.m. on Monday, September 24, on the twelfth floor of the office building at 1015 Locust Street.

Categories
North St. Louis Preservation Board The Ville

Talking Past Each Other?

by Michael R. Allen

Here is the written part of my testimony to the Preservation Board concerning the “Doctor’s Building” at 4635 Martin Luther King Drive in The Ville, a contributing resources to the pending Wagoner Place Historic District. (Read more here.) The board denied a demolition permit for the building on appeal at its meeting on Monday. The pastor of the church that owns the building had earlier involved Elliot Davis’ brash “You Paid For It” show to broadcast his claim that by doing its job, the Cultural Resources Office is a waste of tax dollars. Davis’ report did not matter that the church’s wrecking contractor had started demolition without a permit.

Thankfully, with the offer of Alderman Sam Moore (D-4th) to swap land for the parking the pastor seeks, the demolition denial should cause no ruffled feathers. However, forging such a compromise at the very last minute seems like a difficult way to deal with situations like this. There must be a better way to make sure that city preservation laws are recognized by all citizens. The laws are not designed to be punitive, but to ensure that our shared architectural heritage is handled responsibly by present owners. Ignorance of the laws breeds polarization, not understanding. I can make testimony like this forever, but without the foundation of education on preservation as a cultural good, there will be a gap between me and property owners like the pastor. Rear-guard preservation activism is only designed to spare specific buildings. Hearts and minds should be swayed some other way, and I hope to work with others — including many aldermen and pastors — to make that happen.

My words from Monday:

Staff is correct; the so-called Doctors Building does not meet the criteria for demolition established under ordinance.

Under city law, thankfully, demolition is not an entitlement. This Board is enabled to uphold the physical integrity of this city’s buildings and historic districts at its discretion. We have a process that mostly works. Key to that process is respect for the actual laws at hand.

The applicant illegally began demolition of this building, causing damage that he has broadcast on television as reason why the building is unsound and fit for demolition. However, the Building Commissioner quickly stopped the work and further damage has been avoided. The Building Commissioner notably did not issue an emergency demolition order, meaning that the building’s condition even after demolition began was not so unsound as to require immediate demolition.

The best evidence presented so far by the applicant is damage inflicted through illegal demolition. Surely the Board will take that evidence with one thousand grains of salt.

In the current state, the building retains architectural integrity as well as physically sound condition defined in the Preservation ordinance and interpreted by the Building Division. Once it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in the Wagoner Place Historic District, rehabilitation tax credits are available to address the building’s actual problems (none of which threaten it structurally).

That makes sense to most readers of this blog. However, the testimony was made in a specific context in which understanding is a scarcity. Somehow, with this issue and the broader Ville issue, we found that understanding at the Preservation Board on Monday. Usually, we aren’t that fortunate.

Categories
Demolition Fox Park North St. Louis Preservation Board South St. Louis The Ville

Summary of Monday’s Preservation Board Meeting

by Michael R. Allen

On Monday, the Preservation Board met. Commissioners John Burse, Mike Killeen, David Richardson, Mary Johnson, Anthony Robinson, Alderman Terry Kennedy and Richard Callow were present. Follow along with the agenda published here; that includes detailed reports on all items.

Here is a summary of the proceedings:

PRELIMINARY REVIEW – DEMOLITION

The Ville: In the end, the Board voted 4-3 to accept staff recommendation to demolish eleven homes in the The Ville Historic District. Commissioners Kennedy, Richardson and Johnson voted “yea” while Commissioners Robinson, Killeen and Burse voted “nay.” Chairman Callow broke the tie by voting “yea.” During testimony, Alderman Sam Moore stated he would just as gladly mothball the buildings as tear them down, as long as something was done. He actually consented to staff recommendation after back-and-forth with Cultural Resources Director Kate Shea.

3911 & 3961 Blair: After rejecting a motion by Kennedy to approve demolition of both houses, the Board voted 4-1 (Killeen dissenting) to approve demolition of 3911 and deny demolition of 3961 Blair. Alderman Freeman Bosley, Sr. already broke his earlier promise to support no further demolition in the Hyde Park Historic District and urged approval of both, especially 3911 which — if the city sells the lot to a homeowner — will become the site of a gazebo, circle drive and swimming pool for a house next door.

PRELIMINARY REVIEW – NEW CONSTRUCTION

Both items approved with staff stipulations. The number of permits this month was atypically low.

APPEALS OF STAFF DENIALS

5286-98 Page Boulevard: Owners obtained a continuance; matter not considered.

4635 Martin Luther King Drive: This controversial issue, subject of a recent “You Paid for It” segment on Fox 2, died down after Alderman Moore promised a land swap with the church seeking demolition. Moore is in favor of preserving the so-called Doctor’s Building. The Board unanimously denied the appeal, and the pastor stated he would pursue the swap to get parking space elsewhere.

7416 Vermont Avenue: The Board unanimously denied the appeal of a church seeking to demolish a historic parsonage in Carondelet.

NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS

The Board approved all nominations to the National Register of Historic Places.

Categories
National Register North St. Louis Preservation Board The Ville

Trick Question Regarding the Ville Demolitions

by Michael R. Allen

What kind of careful decisions about historic preservation can the city’s Preservation Board make when faced with an application to demolish 39 different buildings in one neighborhood?

That’s the case tomorrow, when the Board will consider Alderman Sam Moore’s (D-4th) aggressive push to wreck 39 buildings scattered throughout the Ville neighborhood. The city’s Cultural Resources Office staff has approved some permits for demolition on buildings that barely exist. That’s fine. But the remaining 39 buildings deserve more than even one hour’s hearing by the Board.

Much of the Ville lies within a city historic district, but very little is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The staff of CRO have worked on several successful National Register nomination in the last two years, but more are possible. Not enough is know yet about future nominations to know what buildings on Alderman Moore’s list are potentially contributing resources to future districts. Caution is needed, but unfortunately the Preservation Board is bound to decide the fate of these buildings in a rather uncautious manner.

Categories
North St. Louis Preservation Board The Ville

Mayor Slay Makes Case for Preserving Doctor’s Building in the Ville

by Michael R. Allen

MayorSlay.com is ahead of Ecology of Absence in making the case for preservation of at least one of the buildings in the Ville whose fate will be considered at Monday’s Preservation Board meeting. I’m certainly not complaining.

Writing about the Doctor’s Building, the mayoral voice states:

After neighbors and the alderman noticed the demo and reported it, the City’s buildings inspectors ordered the owner to stop. If he wishes to continue, the building’s owner will have to make a persuasive case for demolition before the Preservation Board.

Given its place in our history and the fact the federal historic designation makes tax credits available for the building’s rehabilitation, I can’t imagine what that case would be.

Read more here.

Categories
North St. Louis Preservation Board The Ville

Thirty-Nine Demolition Permits in The Ville on July Preservation Board Agenda

The preliminary agenda for the monthly meeting of the city’s Preservation Board (to be held Monday, July 23) contains many demolition permits:

For preliminary review:

4232 and 4234 Aldine; 1707, 1709, 1711, 1717, 1820, 1824, 1825 and 1826 Annie Malone; 1922 Belle Glade; 3950, 4320 and 4448 Cote Brilliante; 4547 Cottage; 4409, 4411 and 4417 Garfield; 4549, 4551 (front) and 4551 (rear) Kennerly; 4402 Maffitt; 4147, 4153,
4220, 4224, 4234, 4446 and 4649 Dr. Martin Luther King; 4357, 4446, 4617 and 4559 North Market; 4364 St. Ferdinand; 1825, 2510 and 2512 N. Taylor; 3013 Vine Grove, all in the Ville historic district.

On appeal:

Residential buildings at 3911 and 3961 Blair Avenue in the Hyde Park historic district;

A two-and-a-half-story storefront and apartment building at 4635 Martin Luther King Drive in the Ville historic District;

A two-story storefront building at 5286-98 Page Boulevard in the Mount Cabanne/Raymond Place historic district;

A two-story rectory at 4716 Vermont Avenue in the Central Carondelet Historic District.

Also on the agenda are five nominations to the National Register of Historic Places.

Categories
Demolition Hyde Park North St. Louis Preservation Board St. Louis Board of Aldermen

Bosley Won’t Support Any More Demolition in Hyde Park

by Michael R. Allen

During testimony at Monday’s Preservation Board meeting, Alderman Freeman Bosley, Sr. (D-3rd) stated that he would no longer support demolition in the Hyde Park Historic District, a federally-certified local historic district located entirely within his ward.

According to Bosley, decades of demolition have taken their toll. After watching buildings fall during days when the Hyde Park neighborhood was more desperate for development, he sees mistakes in past practices. However, the alderman wants to see extensive new construction in the neighborhood because it makes the older buildings more attractive to rehabbers.

Bosley was testifying in favor of a plan to build two new houses on 25nd Street offered by Mark Zerillo in consultation with realtor, developer and Preservation Board Vice Chairperson Mary “One” Johnson. The houses would entail reuse of existing foundations poured in 1995 but never build upon that would support two-story brick-faced frame houses supposedly modeled on older flat-roofed flats on the neighborhood.

Cultural Resources Office Director Kate Shea opposed granting preliminary approval due to the project’s lack of compliance with the standards of the local district. (Read Shea’s report here.) The Preservation Board concurred; a motion to withhold preliminary approval made by John Burse passed by a vote of 5-1 with board member Ald. Terry Kennedy (D-18th) opposed.

The Preservation Board also granted preliminary approval to infill housing in Hyde Park proposed by a development group headed by Ken Nuernburger (more here). That plan called for demolition of a two-story commercial building at 2303 Salisbury and a two-story brick house at 3915 N. 25th Street, across the street from the foundations proposed for reuse by Zerillo and the Johnsons.

The Board approved demolition of the building on Salisbury by a vote of 8-1, with member Mike Killeen dissenting. The Board denied demolition of the building on 25th street by a vote of 5-3, with members David Richardson, Johnson and Kennedy dissenting. Chairman Richard Callow abstained from these votes.

Categories
Demolition Preservation Board

Dutchtown Demolition on Today’s Preservation Board Agenda

Check out Urban Review today:

Preservation Board to Hear Appeal to Raze 19th Century House

Categories
Historic Preservation Preservation Board

A New Job at St. Louis’ Cultural Resources Office

Today MayorSlay.com announced the creation of a new staff position at the city’s Cultural Resources Office. I can only applaud this wise move to create a permanent position funded from the city’s general revenue.

Our city’s local district ordinances deserve support and reasonable interpretation. The load of rehab and new construction in local districts is both high and steady, Consequently, the Cultural Resources Office has been greatly overwhelmed lately. One response to this welcome change could have been weakening the local district ordinances to be more lenient on design.

Instead, the mayor wisely went with another option — another staff member to process the myriad building permits under the review of the CRO.

On another level, the move is also welcome. The city could definitely use another full-time job in historic preservation. Potential applicants should wait for the forthcoming advertisement of the job before applying.