st. louis city cultural resources office preservation board - may 20 meeting

7/30/2019 ST. LOUIS CITY CULTURAL RESOURCES OFFICE PRESERVATION BOARD - May 20 meeting

1/35

CULTURAL RESOURCES OFFICEPRESERVATION BOARD

REGULAR MEETINGMONDAY MAY 20, 2013 4:00 P.M.

1520 MARKET ST. #2000www.stlouis-mo.gov/cultural-resources

Roll Call - Approval of the April 22, 2013 meeting minutes - Approval of current agenda.

PRELIMINARY REVIEWS Jurisdiction Project Pg.

A. 26A and 26B MARYLAND ......Central West End ...................Storefront alterations ...............1Historic District

B. 1000 SIDNEY STREET..............Soulard Historic District .........Roof structure over patio..........6

NEW APPLICATION

C. 1157-59 S. KINGSHIGHWAY...Preservation Review .............Demolish building .....................10District

APPEALS OF DENIALS

D. 5928 PERSHING AVENUE .......Skinker-DeBaliviere ...............Retain windows.........................20Historic District

E. 3324-26 MISSOURI AVENUE ..Benton Park Historic .............Retain windows.........................24District

TABLED FROM JANUARY

F. 2746 UTAH STREET ................Preservation Review and .......Appeal of denial: .......................28National Register District demolish brick building


2/35

1

A.

DATE: May 20, 2013ADDRESS: 26A & 26B Maryland PlazaITEM: Preliminary Review of storefront alterationsJURISDICTION: Central West End Certified Local Historic District Ward 28STAFF: Andrea Gagen, Cultural Resources Office

26A & 26B MARYLAND PLAZA

OWNER:Koplar Properties/Sam Koplar

APPLICANT: Lululemon Athletica/TiffanySanderson

RECOMMENDATION:That the Preservation Board deny thepreliminary review for the proposedstorefront alterations as they are notin compliance with the Central WestEnd Local Historic District Standards.


3/35

2

PROPOSAL:

The applicant proposes to extend storefront window surrounds to two additional bays on York Avenuethrough the addition of a tiled design in shades of purple, blue and green. New entrance doors with acoordinated design are proposed for the Maryland Plaza faade.

RELEVANTLEGISLATION:

Excerpt from Ordinance #61177, the Central West End Historic District:

RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE AND USE STANDARDS

I. INTRODUCTIONAlterations and new construction which create a false sense of historical development, such asadding conjectural features or inappropriate decorative elements, shall not be undertaken.Does not comply. Adding the tiled panel storefront surrounds would alter the original design andadd decorative elements unrelated to that design.

IV. COMMERCIAL BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS

REPAIRS AND REHABILITATION TO HISTORIC COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Addition or removal of decorative elements, e.g., window pediments, bracketed hoods overdoors, door surrounds, etc. normally is prohibited unless replacement would return the buildingto its original design. Proposed exceptions shall be subject to review for design suitability andapproval by the Cultural Resources Office staff.Does not comply. The tiled window surrounds would add a decorative element that is not originalto the building.

9) StorefrontsThe area of the first floor historically enclosed with a storefront shall not be expanded orreduced. When original and historic storefront fabric is present, it shall be retained andrestored or rehabilitated.Does not comply. While the storefront windows extend the length of the York Avenue faade, thefirst floor treatment, consisting of continuous black carrera glass window surrounds, correspondswith the extent of the articulated faade above in a one-bay return. Expanding the storefrontwindow emphasis with a new material, the proposed multicolored tiled surrounds, wouldunbalance and detract from the original architectural intent.


4/35

3

PRELIMINARYFINDINGS ANDCONCLUSION:

The Cultural Resources Office consideration of the Central West End District standards and the specificcriteria for storefront alterations led to these preliminary findings.

26A & 26B Maryland Plaza is located in the Central West End Local Historic District. The proposed storefront alterations would introduce a new material, dramatically alter the

appearance of the historic storefront, and detract from the integrity of the Art Deco buildingdesign.

The panels would be mounted on cleats drilled into the mortar joints, possibly resulting in thechipping of surrounding bricks. There has also been no information submitted concerning theviability of removing the material in the future.

The proposed new doors with the tile design could be approved, conditional on the retention of

the existing doors and their re-installation once the applicant no longer occupies thecommercial space.

Several members of the Central West End Associations Planning and Development Committeehave expressed concerns with the proposal.

Based on these preliminary findings, the Cultural Resources Office recommends that the PreservationBoard deny the preliminary review as the proposed storefront alterations do not comply with theCentral West End Local Historic District standards.

YORK AVENUE ELEVATION


5/35

4

STOREFRONT AREA TO RECEIVE TILE SURROUND

ELEVATION OF PROPOSED ALTERATIONS


6/35

5

RENDERING OF PROPOSED STOREFRONT ALTERATIONS

TILE AND INSTALLATION DETAILS


7/35

6

B.

DATE: May 20, 2013ADDRESS: 1000 Sidney StreetITEM: Preliminary Review to construct a roof structure over existing patioJURISDICTION: Soulard Certified Local Historic District Ward 9STAFF: Andrea Gagen, Cultural Resources Office

1000 SIDNEY

OWNER:John Lieluf RPSLRD LLC

APPLICANT: Michael R. Killeen

RECOMMENDATION:That the Preservation Board deny thepreliminary review for the proposedroof structure as it is not incompliance with the Soulard LocalHistoric District Standards.


8/35

7

THE PROPOSAL:

The applicant proposes to construction a roof structure that would cover an existing patio that iscurrently in use for outdoor dining.


Excerpt from Ordinance #62382, the Soulard Historic District:

RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE AND USE STANDARDS

ARTICLE 2: EXISTING BUILDINGS206 APPENDAGES ON PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC FACADES

206.3 New Appendages to Semi-Public and Private Facades

New porches, stoops and steps at Semi-Public and Private Facades shall be based on a ModelExample.Does not comply. The proposed roof structure, which is similar to a porch, extends nearly theentire length of the Semi-Public Faade to cover an area much larger than a porch or any type of historic appendage and is not based on a Model Example.


The Cultural Resources Office consideration of the criteria for appendages on Semi-public Facades ledto these preliminary findings.

1000 Sidney is located in the Soulard Local Historic District. The proposed roof structure is not based on the required Model Example. The proposed roof is proposed to be approximately 27 feet by 42 feet, a size too large to be

perceived as a historic appendage.

That materials include wood, steel and painted Fypon. The roof will be constructed on a Semi-public Faade and would be highly visible from Sidney

Street.

Based on these preliminary findings, the Cultural Resources Office recommends that the PreservationBoard deny the preliminary review for the proposed roof structure as it does not comply with theSoulard Neighborhood Local Historic District standards.


9/35

8

LOCATION OF ROOF STRUCTURE AS SEEN FROM SIDNEY

PROPOSED SITE PLAN NEW STRUCTURE SHOWN SHADED


10/35

9

ELEVATIONS OF PROPOSED ROOF STRUCTURE


11/35

10

C.DATE: May 20, 2013ADDRESS: 1157-59 S. KingshighwayITEM: New application: demolitionJURISDICTION: Preservation Review District Ward 17STAFF: Betsy Bradley, Director, Cultural Resources Office

1157-59 S KINGSHIGHWAY

OWNER: KJPRZ LLC

APPLICANT: AALCO Wrecking CO.

RECOMMENDATION:That the Preservation Board withholdapproval of the demolition permitapplication until zoning approval or abuilding permit is secured.


12/35

11


St. Louis City Ordinance #64689

PART X - DEMOLITION REVIEWS

SECTION FIFTY-EIGHT.Whenever an application is made for a permit to demolish a Structure which is i) individually listedon the National Register, ii) within a National Register District, iii) for which National RegisterDesignation is pending or iv) which is within a Preservation Review District established pursuant toSections Fifty-Five to Fifty-Six of this ordinance, the building commissioner shall submit a copy of such application to the Cultural Resources Office within three days after said application is receivedby his Office.

1157-59 S. Kingshighway is located in a Preservation Review District.


SECTION ONE. Preservation Review Districts are hereby established for the areas of the City of St.Louis described in Exhibit A.

SECTION FIVE. Demolition permit - Board decision.

All demolition permit application reviews pursuant to this chapter shall be made by the Director of the Office who shall either approve or disapprove of all such applications based upon the criteria of this ordinance. All appeals from the decision of the Director shall be made to the Preservation Board.Decisions of the Board or Office shall be in writing, shall be mailed to the applicant immediatelyupon completion and shall indicate the application by the Board or Office of the following criteria,which are listed in order of importance, as the basis for the decision:

A. Redevelopment Plans. Demolitions which would comply with a redevelopment plan previouslyapproved by ordinance or adopted by the Planning and Urban Design Commission shall beapproved except in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted.

Not applicable.

B. Architectural Quality. Structure's architectural merit, uniqueness, and/or historic value shall beevaluated and the structure classified as high merit, merit, qualifying, or noncontributing basedupon: Overall style, era, building type, materials, ornamentation, craftsmanship, site planning,and whether it is the work of a significant architect, engineer, or craftsman; and contribution tothe streetscape and neighborhood. Demolition of sound high merit structures shall not beapproved by the Office. Demolition of merit or qualifying structures shall not be approved except

in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted.1157-59 S. Kingshighway is a two-story commercial block with a meeting hall on the upperstory. Designed by architect K. Jansson, it was built by the Swedish National Society. A centralentrance has a terra-cotta surround that with an arched head, its tympanum displaying thebuildings name the Swedish National Society Building in raised letters. Two storefronts,which were rented to commercial entities, flank the entrance. A series of closely-set windows inthe second story light the open space, known as the Swedish National Society Hall. The date of


13/35

12

construction, 1913, is included on the parapet. While conventional in form and articulation, theterra-cotta pilasters on the ground story have a design that seems to be Swedish-inspired. Theone-story addition to the rear dates from 1951.

The Swedish National Society was established in St. Louis in 1889. The number of chartermembers has not been determined; it is thought that only men born in Sweden were eligiblefor membership and that the Society operated a burial insurance operation, as many ethnicsocieties did. By 1904 the group had a band and took part in the parade opening the WorldsFair.

The Society grew to nearly 200 members during the 1910s and decided to construct its ownbuilding funded by its members who purchased individual shares. At the dedication of thebuilding in 1913, 38 new members were installed. The number of Swedish-Americans living inSt. Louis during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has not been determined.The 1930 census reported that there were some 600 Swedish-Americans living in St. Louis, agroup that outnumbered both Norwegian- and Danish-Americans.

The Society celebrated its 50th

Anniversary in 1939 at a time when membership was declining.The Society decided to make modern improvements to the building so that the Hall on theupper level could be rented to other groups and provide income that would defray the costs of maintaining the building. The 1940 City Directory confirms the use of the building by othergroups and lists several unions, service groups, political clubs, veterans groups, and the SwedishNational Society, and its counterpart, the Linnea Society of Swedish women as tenants of theSwedish National Society Hall. At that time, a Velvet Freeze store was a ground-level tenant.There was a filling station to the north and the King Chester Buffet to the south. The tenants of the ground floor units changed during the following decades, although the south storefronthoused taverns during the 1950s and 1960s.

The membership of the Society had fallen to less than 40 during the late 1960s. The groupdisbanded in 1969 and planned to sell the building and distribute the assets among itsremaining members.

While the Swedish immigrants were not a major ethnic-American population in St. Louis, thegroup and its members represent the diversity of the Citys residents. A building may havehistoric value and it is in this way that the Swedish National Society Building may be eligible forlisting in the National Register if enough information can be found to develop an argument forlocal significance under Criterion A Ethnic History. For this reason the Swedish NationalSociety Building is considered to be Qualifying under the definition of the ordinance.

C. Condition. The Office shall make exterior inspections to determine whether a structure is sound.If a structure or portion thereof proposed to be demolished is obviously not sound, theapplication for demolition shall be approved except in unusual circumstances which shall beexpressly noted. The remaining or salvageable portion(s) of the structure shall be evaluated todetermine the extent of reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration required to obtain a viablestructure.


14/35

13

1. Sound structures with apparent potential for adaptive reuse, reuse and or resale shallgenerally not be approved for demolition unless application of criteria in subsections A, D, Fand G, four, six and seven indicates demolition is appropriate.

The condition of this building appears to be sound, based on exterior inspection.

2. Structurally attached or groups of buildings. The impact of the proposed demolition on anyremaining portion(s) of the building will be evaluated. Viability of walls which would beexposed by demolition and the possibility of diminished value resulting from the partialdemolition of a building, or of one or more buildings in a group of buildings, will beconsidered.

Not applicable.

D. Neighborhood Effect and Reuse Potential.

1. Neighborhood Potential: Vacant and vandalized buildings on the block face, the presentcondition of surrounding buildings, and the current level of repair and maintenance of neighboring buildings shall be considered.

This west side of S. Kingshighway, south of Berthold, has been in commercial use since theearly twentieth century. The Swedish National Society, which was flanked by servicestations to the north and south in the 1920s, is the surviving building from the initialdevelopment. The property to the south has been renovated and is occupied by a business.The former fast-food restaurant building to the north is vacant and proposed for demolitionas part of the project under consideration. A large new apartment complex stands acrossKingshighway. Older residential neighborhoods flank the Kingshighway frontage on both theeast and west. While the Swedish National Society Building does not have an immediatehistoric context, its setting was always quite varied.

2. Reuse Potential: The potential of the structure for renovation and reuse, based on similarcases within the City, and the cost and extent of possible renovation shall be evaluated.Structures located within currently well maintained blocks or blocks undergoing upgradingrenovation will generally not be approved for demolition.

The potential for reuse of a commercial block building is moderate to high on a highly-traveled street. Small businesses have occupied the storefront spaces but with a relativelyhigh degree of turnover. The open upper floor could accommodate a use that requires alarge, open space or be partitioned for commercial or office use.

3. Economic Hardship: The Office shall consider the economic hardship which may beexperienced by the present owner if the application is denied. Such consideration mayinclude, among other things, the estimated cost of demolition, the estimated cost of rehabilitation or reuse, the feasibility of public or private financing, the effect of taxabatement, if applicable, and the potential for economic growth and development in thearea.

No evidence of economic hardship in terms of the rehabilitation of this building has beensubmitted as the application is for demolition.

E. Urban Design. The Office shall evaluate the following urban design factors:


15/35

14

1. The effect of a proposed partial demolition on attached or row buildings.Not applicable.

2. The integrity of the existing block face and whether the proposed demolition will significantlyimpact the continuity and rhythm of structures within the block.

3. Proposed demolition of buildings with unique or significant character important to a district,street, block or intersection will be evaluated for impact on the present integrity, rhythm,balance and density on the site, block, intersection or district.

As this blockfront does not have a particular continuity or rhythm, the loss of the SwedishNational Society Building would not have an effect on a blockfront with a strong, coherentcharacter.

4. The elimination of uses will be considered; however, the fact that a present and original orhistoric use of a site does not conform to present zoning or land use requirements in no wayshall require that such a nonconforming use to be eliminated.

Not applicable.

F. Proposed Subsequent Construction. Notwithstanding the provisions of any ordinance to thecontrary, the Office shall evaluate proposed subsequent construction on the site of proposeddemolition based upon whether:

1. The applicant has demonstrated site control by ownership or an option contract;The applicant is the owner of record.

2. The proposed construction would equal or exceed the contribution of the structure to theintegrity of the existing streetscape and block face. Proposal for creation of vacant land bydemolition(s) in question will be evaluated as to appropriateness on that particular site,within that specific block. Parking lots will be given favorable consideration when directlyadjoining/abutting facilities require additional off-street parking;

The applicant proposes to demolish both the Swedish National Society Building and aformer fast-food restaurant on the parcel to the north. He is proposing to construct a newbuilding that has a S. Kingshighway faade that is quite similar to the Swedish NationalSociety building and that incorporates the terra-cotta elements of the 1913 building. Thenew building would appear to have two storefronts on the ground story and is shown ashaving the same number of windows as the existing building, placed further apart in a widerfaade. The new building is proposed because the location of the Swedish Society buildingso close to the building adjacent to the south does not allow incorporation of a drive-upwindow, which must be located on the south side of the building.

A new two-story brick building, set at the building line, that incorporated space for arestaurant, as shown in Exhibit A, would equal the contribution of the existing building inthe blockface.

3. The proposed construction will be architecturally compatible with the existing block face asto building setbacks, scale, articulation and rhythm, overall architectural character andgeneral use of exterior materials or colors;


16/35

15

The new building is shown at the building line, a location shared by the building to thesouth. Maintaining an existing character of architecture on the blockfront is not particularlyapplicable in this case.

4. The proposed use complies with current zoning requirements;The property is in a Neighborhood Commerce Strategic Land Use area and is zoned G,Local Commercial and Office.

5. The proposed new construction would commence within twelve (12) months from theapplication date.

The applicant will advise the Board on the construction plans at the Board Meeting.

G. Commonly Controlled Property. If a demolition application concerns property adjoining occupiedproperty and if common control of both properties is documented, favorable consideration willgenerally be given to appropriate reuse proposals. Appropriate uses shall include those allowedunder the current zoning classification, reuse for expansion of an existing conforming,commercial or industrial use or a use consistent with a presently conforming, adjoining usegroup. Potential for substantial expansion of an existing adjacent commercial use will be givendue consideration.

The proposed demolition and redevelopment are for commercial use.

H. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures (garages, sheds, etc.) and ancillary structures will beprocessed for immediate resolution. Proposed demolition of frame garages or accessorystructures internal to commercial or industrial sites will, in most cases, be approved unless thatstructure demonstrates high significance under the other criteria listed herein, which shall beexpressly noted.

The building is not an accessory structure.


The Cultural Resource Offices consideration of the criteria for demolition led to these preliminaryfindings:

1157-59 S. Kingshighway is located in a Preservation Review District. The building, designed by architect K. Janssan, was erected as the Swedish National Society

Building in 1913 and was owned by the Society until the late 1960s, when the group disbandedand planned to sell the property.

The building has the standard form of a commercial block with two storefronts located in the

ground story and the upper story consisting of a large hall. The Swedish National Society Building has the potential to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places under the Ethnic History area of significance, and therefore is considered to be aQualifying property. There is no potential for the property to be a contributing property in aNational Register historic district.

The commercial area on S. Kingshighway does not present any deterrent to the rehabilitationand reuse of the building.


17/35

16

The reuse potential of the building is at least moderate and the zoning is Local Commercial andOffice.

The loss of the building would not have a notable impact in terms of urban design on theblockfront of such varied character.

New construction is proposed for the site, a two-story brick building of similar form that wouldincorporate the terra-cotta elements from the existing building, would equal the presence of the existing building in the integrity of the blockface.

The Cultural Resources Office concludes that it would be preferable to have the qualifying SwedishNational Society Building as part of the S. Kingshighway streetscape. A new restaurant with a drive-through could be developed without the demolition of the Swedish National Society Building, whichprovides authentic early twentieth-century architecture and texture. The proposed new buildingrequires the consolidation of two parcels and zoning and building permit approvals.

The Cultural Resources Office recommends that the Board instruct the Cultural Resources Office towithhold approval of the demolition permit application until zoning approval or a building permit issecured.

FAADE


18/35

17

TERRA COTTA PANEL AND PILASTERS AT ENTRANCE

NORTH SIDE AND REAR FAADES


19/35

18

EXHIBIT A. PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION

PPROPOSED FLOOR PLAN


20/35

19

PROIPOSED SITE PLAN


21/35

20

D.

DATE: May 20, 2013SUBJECT: Appeal of Directors Denial to retain vinyl windows installed without a permitADDRESS: 5928 Pershing AvenueJURISDICTION: Skinker-DeBaliviere Local Historic District Ward 28STAFF: Andrea Gagen, Preservation Planner, Cultural Resources Office

5928 PERSHING

OWNER:Lucky Group LLC/Mr. Lu

APPLICANT:

James Ragland

RECOMMENDATIONS:That the Preservation Board upholdthe Directors Denial, as the windowsdo not comply with the Skinker-DeBaliviere Historic District Standards.


22/35

21


Excerpt from Ordinance #57688, the Skinker-DeBaliviere-Catlin Tract-Parkview Historic District:

RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE STANDARDS

d. Details (for permit required work):Architectural details on existing structures, such as columns, pediments, dormers, porches,and bay windows should be maintained in their original form if at all possible. Renovationsinvolving structural changes to window or door openings are permit required work and thusmust be reviewed by the Landmarks and Urban Design Commission. Design of theserenovations should be compatible in scale, materials, and color with existing features of thebuilding and with adjacent historical structures. When on the front of a building, wood orfactory-finished colored metal is the preferred material for frames of new and replacementstorm windows and screens and storm and screen doors. Awnings on the front of a houseshould be canvas or canvas-type materials.Does not comply. Windows are not compatible in materials and the proportions are not

consistent with historic wood windows. The brickmold has also been wrapped in aluminumcoil stock.


The Cultural Resource Offices consideration of the criteria for windows led to these preliminaryfindings:

5928 Pershing is located in the Skinker-DeBaliviere Local Historic District. The vinyl windows were installed without a permit. Vinyl is not an approved material for windows on the front of a building under the

historic district standards. The profiles of the sash and frames of the installed windows do not match the original

windows. The configuration of the original front windows was not replicated: these windows had

multiple lights, and a single window at the first story was replaced by two gangedwindows.

The brickmold has been wrapped, although the owner is willing to remove it.Based on the Preliminary findings, the Cultural Resources Office recommends that thePreservation Board uphold the Directors denial of the application for the windows as they arenot in compliance with the Skinker-DeBaliviere Historic District Standards.


23/35

22

FRONT ELEVATION BEFORE WINDOW INSTALLATION, SHOWING HISTORIC WOOD WINDOWSBEHIND ALUMINUM STORMS

FIRST STORY WINDOWS ORIGINALLY A SINGLE,10/1 WINDOW

DETAIL OF WINDOW AND WRAPPING


24/35

23

VINYL WINDOWS AT SECOND STORY

VINYL WINDOWS AT BASEMENT


25/35

24

E.

DATE: May 20, 2013ADDRESS: 3324-26 Missouri Ave.ITEM: Appeal of the Directors denial of an application to retain noncompliant windowsJURISDICTION: Benton Park Certified Local Historic District Ward 9STAFF: Jan Cameron, Cultural Resources Office

3324-26 MISSOURI AVE.

OWNER/A PPLICANT:

Will Lieberman/Peter Hammond, ArchitectRECOMMENDATION:That the Preservation Board uphold theDirectors denial as the installed windowsdo not meet the Benton Park HistoricDistrict standards.


26/35

25


Excerpt from Benton Park Historic District Ordinance #67175:

203 WindowsComment: Windows of historic buildings are a very important part of a building's historic

character.203.1 Windows at Public Facades

1. Windows in Public Facades shall be one of the following:a. The existing window repaired and retained.b. A replacement window which duplicates the original and meets the following

requirements:i. Replacement windows or sashes shall be made of wood or finished aluminum.

ii. The profiles of muntins, sashes, frames and moldings match the original elementsin dimension and configuration.

iii. The number of lights, their arrangement, size and proportion shall match the

original or be based on a Model Example.iv. The method of opening shall be the same as the original with the followingexception: double-hung windows may be changed to single-hung.

203.2 Windows at Semi-Public Facades1. Windows at Semi-Public Facades shall comply with all of the restrictions outlined in 203.1

except as noted herein.2. Replacement Windows in a Semi-Public Faade

a. Materials: Replacement windows may be constructed of the following materials:i. Wood;

ii. Vinyl-coated wood; oriii. Finished (painted or otherwise coated with color) aluminum. Clear anodized

aluminum is prohibited.b. Configuration

i. The profiles of muntins, sashes, frames and moldings shall match the originalelements in dimension and configuration.

ii. The number of lights may be reduced to one-over-one.iii. Square head replacement windows may replace original arched head windows

where the apex of the arch is less than 6" above its base. However, the arch shallbe maintained with a decorative element of wood, finished metal or plastic whichappears as wood.

c. Brick Moldingi. In all cases, the original brick molding shall be retained or duplicated.Does not comply. Replacement windows throughout the building meet the standards in design andmaterials, but are not appropriately sized: the openings have been blocked down with additionalframing and trim and the brickmold, which is stained a dark wood color, does not replicate theoriginal or historic brickmold.


27/35

26


The Cultural Resources Office consideration of the criteria for replacement windows in historicbuildings in the Benton Park Local Historic District Standards and other factors led to these preliminaryfindings:

3324 Missouri is located in the Benton Park Local Historic District.

The project is receiving substantial funding from the Community Development Authority. The front faade of the building was entirely reconstructed. The windows that have been installed are approved historic replacement windows. The windows installed are incorrectly sized to the new openings; are shorter and narrower than

the original windows; and are not in compliance with the plans approved by the CulturalResources Office on 3/25/2011.

Because the windows are inappropriately sized, the openings have been filled with additionalframing and a wider than traditional-sized brick mold;

The front elevation and the south elevation are highly visible from the street; the northelevation is partially screened by an adjacent property and the rear faade is not visible.

The brickmold installed does not replicate the original brickmold in dimension or profile andhas been stained instead of painted, as would have been done historically, further altering theappearance of the window openings and sash.

The Cultural Resources Office has received complaints from the neighborhood concerning theappearance of the windows.

Based on the Preliminary findings, the Cultural Resources Office recommends that the PreservationBoard uphold the denial of the building permit application to retain all the windows, as they do notcomply with the Benton Park Historic District Standards. The Cultural Resources Office furtherrecommends that the owner be required to replace the windows of the front and south faades with

appropriately-sized windows but that he be allowed to retain the non-complaint windows on the northand rear facades.

FRONT FAADE WINDOW SILL AND BRICKMOLD DETAIL


28/35

27

GOOGLE IMAGE SHOWING DEMOLISHED FRONT FAADE

SOUTH FAADE WINDOW REAR FAADE

3324 MISSOURI BEFORE REHAB AFTER FAADE RECONSTRUCTION


29/35

28

F.DATE: May 20, 2013ADDRESS: 2746 Utah AvenueITEM: Appeal of Demolition Permit Denial; Tabled from JanuaryJURISDICTION: Preservation Review District, National Register of Historic Place Historic District

Ward 9STAFF: Betsy Bradley, Director, Cultural Resources Office

2746 UTAH

OWNER: Kham Phao and WandeeChareunsap represented by Pone Siharaj

APPLICANT: Hughes Wrecking

RECOMMENDATION:That the Preservation Board uphold theDirectors denial unless the economicfeasibility of extensive repairs and reusepotential of the property indicate thatdemolition is appropriate.


30/35

29

APPEAL UPDATE:

After hearing a review of the criteria to be considered for a demolition by Cultural Resources OfficeDirector Betsy Bradley and testimony from the applicant and his representative, the PreservationBoard decided to table the appeal for 90 (ninety) days and asked the applicant to list the property forsale and consult with the Alderman and Benton Park West Neighborhood Association further.

As over 90 days from that January meeting date have passed, this item was placed on the agenda.



PART X - DEMOLITION REVIEWS

SECTION FIFTY-EIGHT.

Whenever an application is made for a permit to demolish a Structure which is i) individually listed

on the National Register, ii) within a National Register District, iii) for which National RegisterDesignation is pending or iv) which is within a Preservation Review District established pursuant toSections Fifty-Five to Fifty-Six of this ordinance, the building commissioner shall submit a copy of such application to the Cultural Resources Office within three days after said application is receivedby his Office.

2746 Utah is a contributing building in the Gravois Jefferson Streetcar Suburb National RegisterHistoric District and is located in a Preservation Review District.


SECTION ONE. Preservation Review Districts are hereby established for the areas of the City of St.

Louis described in Exhibit A.SECTION FIVE. Demolition permit - Board decision.

All demolition permit application reviews pursuant to this chapter shall be made by the Director of the Office who shall either approve or disapprove of all such applications based upon the criteria of this ordinance. All appeals from the decision of the Director shall be made to the Preservation Board.Decisions of the Board or Office shall be in writing, shall be mailed to the applicant immediatelyupon completion and shall indicate the application by the Board or Office of the following criteria,which are listed in order of importance, as the basis for the decision:

A. Redevelopment Plans. Demolitions which would comply with a redevelopment plan previouslyapproved by ordinance or adopted by the Planning and Urban Design Commission shall beapproved except in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted.

Not applicable.

B. Architectural Quality. Structure's architectural merit, uniqueness, and/or historic value shall beevaluated and the structure classified as high merit, merit, qualifying, or noncontributing basedupon: Overall style, era, building type, materials, ornamentation, craftsmanship, site planning,


31/35

30

and whether it is the work of a significant architect, engineer, or craftsman; and contribution tothe streetscape and neighborhood. Demolition of sound high merit structures shall not beapproved by the Office. Demolition of merit or qualifying structures shall not be approved exceptin unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted.

2746 Utah is a two-story brick residential building erected in 1909. It is quite similar in

architectural presence to the other single and two-family buildings that are contemporary to iton the south side of the street. As it has no outstanding architectural design and no knownhistorical significance, it is considered to be a Merit building, rather than a High Merit one.

C. Condition. The Office shall make exterior inspections to determine whether a structure is sound.If a structure or portion thereof proposed to be demolished is obviously not sound, theapplication for demolition shall be approved except in unusual circumstances which shall beexpressly noted. The remaining or salvageable portion(s) of the structure shall be evaluated todetermine the extent of reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration required to obtain a viablestructure.

1. Sound structures with apparent potential for adaptive reuse, reuse and or resale shallgenerally not be approved for demolition unless application of criteria in subsections A, D, Fand G, four, six and seven indicates demolition is appropriate.

The condition of this building, which may still be sound, was compromised by a fire thatoccurred in August 2012. Additional damage that took place during early January 2013includes an area where the brick wall is not intact on one side elevation and a smaller areaof loss on the rear elevation.

2. Structurally attached or groups of buildings. The impact of the proposed demolition on anyremaining portion(s) of the building will be evaluated. Viability of walls which would beexposed by demolition and the possibility of diminished value resulting from the partialdemolition of a building, or of one or more buildings in a group of buildings, will beconsidered.

Not applicable.

D. Neighborhood Effect and Reuse Potential.

1. Neighborhood Potential: Vacant and vandalized buildings on the block face, the presentcondition of surrounding buildings, and the current level of repair and maintenance of neighboring buildings shall be considered.

This blockfront on Utah exhibits a lack of stability below grade. The lot immediately to theeast has been vacant since 1998 when a building was demolished. The house that stands tothe east of the vacant lot, 2740, exhibits a noticeable leaning to the west. 2750 Utah,separated from the building in question by one house, also leans; it was condemned in 2009and came into the LRA inventory in 2012. The unstable below-grade condition seems tovary. Although 2746 has developed a slight lean and racking, 2748 does not exhibitinstability and the three buildings east of 2740 also appear to be stable. It seems likely thattwo additional buildings on this block of Utah will have to be demolished in the future.

2. Reuse Potential: The potential of the structure for renovation and reuse, based on similarcases within the City, and the cost and extent of possible renovation shall be evaluated.


32/35

31

Structures located within currently well maintained blocks or blocks undergoing upgradingrenovation will generally not be approved for demolition.

The potential for continued use of this property was strong prior to the fire, assuming thatits foundation is stable. As a contributing building in a National Register historic district, it iseligible to be a rehabilitation tax credit project.

3. Economic Hardship: The Office shall consider the economic hardship which may beexperienced by the present owner if the application is denied. Such consideration mayinclude, among other things, the estimated cost of demolition, the estimated cost of rehabilitation or reuse, the feasibility of public or private financing, the effect of taxabatement, if applicable, and the potential for economic growth and development n the area.

No evidence of economic hardship in terms of the rehabilitation of this building has beensubmitted as the application is for demolition.

E. Urban Design. The Office shall evaluate the following urban design factors:

1. The effect of a proposed partial demolition on attached or row buildings.Not applicable.

2. The integrity of the existing block face and whether the proposed demolition will significantlyimpact the continuity and rhythm of structures within the block.

Due to below-grade instability noted above, the integrity of the block face seems to be influx; if two leaning buildings are demolished, the block face will have a much moreinconsistent appearance and perhaps become a site for new residential infill.

The property is at a mid-block location adjacent to a narrow vacant lot. The loss of a secondbuilding could further the loss of continuity, but the two lots together could be a buildingsite for a compatible new building that would restore the continuity of the blockfront.

3. Proposed demolition of buildings with unique or significant character important to a district,street, block or intersection will be evaluated for impact on the present integrity, rhythm,balance and density on the site, block, intersection or district.

This building represents a common building type and does not have any individualarchitectural significance.

4. The elimination of uses will be considered; however, the fact that a present and original orhistoric use of a site does not conform to present zoning or land use requirements in no wayshall require that such a nonconforming use to be eliminated.

Not applicable.

F. Proposed Subsequent Construction. Notwithstanding the provisions of any ordinance to thecontrary, the Office shall evaluate proposed subsequent construction on the site of proposeddemolition based upon whether:

1. The applicant has demonstrated site control by ownership or an option contract;Mr. Pone Siharaj has a power of attorney to act on behalf of his parents-in-law, the buildingowners.


33/35

32

2. The proposed construction would equal or exceed the contribution of the structure to theintegrity of the existing streetscape and block face. Proposal for creation of vacant land bydemolition(s) in question will be evaluated as to appropriateness on that particular site,within that specific block. Parking lots will be given favorable consideration when directlyadjoining/abutting facilities require additional off-street parking;

At this time, the owner is proposing no new construction. The property would be sold as aside yard or used as a community garden with oversight provided by Mr. Siharaj.

3. The proposed construction will be architecturally compatible with the existing block face asto building setbacks, scale, articulation and rhythm, overall architectural character andgeneral use of exterior materials or colors;

Not applicable.

4. The proposed use complies with current zoning requirements;The property is in a Neighborhood Preservation Strategic Land Use area and is zoned B,two-family residential.

5. The proposed new construction would commence within twelve (12) months from theapplication date.Not applicable.

G. Commonly Controlled Property. If a demolition application concerns property adjoining occupiedproperty and if common control of both properties is documented, favorable consideration willgenerally be given to appropriate reuse proposals. Appropriate uses shall include those allowedunder the current zoning classification, reuse for expansion of an existing conforming,commercial or industrial use or a use consistent with a presently conforming, adjoining usegroup. Potential for substantial expansion of an existing adjacent commercial use will be givendue consideration.

Not applicable.

H. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures (garages, sheds, etc.) and ancillary structures will beprocessed for immediate resolution. Proposed demolition of frame garages or accessorystructures internal to commercial or industrial sites will, in most cases, be approved unless thatstructure demonstrates high significance under the other criteria listed herein, which shall beexpressly noted.

The building is not categorized as an accessory structure.


The Cultural Resource Offices consideration of the criteria for demolition led to these preliminaryfindings:

2746 Utah, a contributing building in a National Register Historic District and therefore a Meritbuilding, is located in a Preservation Review District.

The building does not have any individual architectural distinction as it represents a commonresidential building type.


34/35

33

A fire has damaged the interior, charred some of the exterior brick, likely made some of thebuildings mortar friable, and since the fire, additional damage has occurred that includes a voidcaused by the loss of a window and surrounding brick and a smaller area of loss of the brickwall.

The surrounding buildings on the block face indicate that there is below-grade subsidence thatis destabilizing some of the foundations on the block and therefore the immediate setting andreuse of the potential for this building do not strongly support rehabilitation.

The economic feasibility of the extensive required repairs may diminish the reuse potential of the building.

The loss of the building would have some effect on urban design. The fact that no new construction is proposed at this time and other criteria were considered,

as applicable, to this proposed demolition.

The Cultural Resources Office concludes that demolition approval may be appropriate as the economicfeasibility of extensive repairs and reuse potential of the property are in question.

Alderman Ortmann supports the denial of demolition.RECOMMENDATION:

That the Board withhold preliminary approval of the proposed demolition of the building unless it findsthat it is not economically feasible to rehabilitate the building after the extensive fire damage and theobvious below-grade instability of this portion of the blockfront.

FAADE REAR ELEVATION

AREA OF COLLAPSE IN EAST SIDE WALL LOSS OF BRICK IN REAR ELEVATION


35/35

PORCH NARROW GANGWAY

BUILDINGS TO EAST BUILDINGS TO WEST

st. louis city cultural resources office preservation board - may 20 meeting

Documents