CULTURAL RESOURCES OFFICE PRESERVATION BOARD

REGULAR MEETING MONDAY MAY 20, 2013 — 4:00 P.M. 1520 MARKET ST. #2000
www.stlouis-mo.gov/cultural-resources

Roll Call - Approval of the April 22, 2013 meeting minutes - Approval of current agenda. PRELIMINARY REVIEWS A. Jurisdiction Project Pg.

26A and 26B MARYLAND ......Central West End ...................Storefront alterations ...............1 Historic District 1000 SIDNEY STREET ..............Soulard Historic District .........Roof structure over patio..........6

B.

NEW APPLICATION C. 1157-59 S. KINGSHIGHWAY ...Preservation Review .............Demolish building .....................10 District APPEALS OF DENIALS D. 5928 PERSHING AVENUE .......Skinker-DeBaliviere ...............Retain windows.........................20 Historic District 3324-26 MISSOURI AVENUE ..Benton Park Historic .............Retain windows.........................24 District

E.

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

A. DATE: ADDRESS: ITEM: JURISDICTION: STAFF: May 20, 2013 26A & 26B Maryland Plaza Preliminary Review of storefront alterations Central West End Certified Local Historic District — Ward 28 Andrea Gagen, Cultural Resources Office

26A & 26B MARYLAND PLAZA

OWNER: Koplar Properties/Sam Koplar APPLICANT: Lululemon Athletica/Tiffany Sanderson RECOMMENDATION: That the Preservation Board deny the preliminary review for the proposed storefront alterations as they are not in compliance with the Central West End Local Historic District Standards.

1

PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to extend storefront window surrounds to two additional bays on York Avenue through the addition of a tiled design in shades of purple, blue and green. New entrance doors with a coordinated design are proposed for the Maryland Plaza façade. RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Excerpt from Ordinance #61177, the Central West End Historic District: RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE AND USE STANDARDS I. INTRODUCTION Alterations and new construction which create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or inappropriate decorative elements, shall not be undertaken. Does not comply. Adding the tiled panel storefront surrounds would alter the original design and add 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 over doors, door surrounds, etc. normally is prohibited unless replacement would return the building to its original design. Proposed exceptions shall be subject to review for design suitability and approval by the Cultural Resources Office staff. Does not comply. The tiled window surrounds would add a decorative element that is not original to the building. 9) Storefronts The area of the first floor historically enclosed with a storefront shall not be expanded or reduced. When original and historic storefront fabric is present, it shall be retained and restored or rehabilitated. Does not comply. While the storefront windows extend the length of the York Avenue façade, the first floor treatment, consisting of continuous black carrera glass window surrounds, corresponds with the extent of the articulated façade above in a one-bay return. Expanding the storefront window emphasis with a new material, the proposed multicolored tiled surrounds, would unbalance and detract from the original architectural intent.

2

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The Cultural Resources Office consideration of the Central West End District standards and the specific criteria 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 building design. The panels would be mounted on cleats drilled into the mortar joints, possibly resulting in the chipping of surrounding bricks. There has also been no information submitted concerning the viability 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 the commercial space. Several members of the Central West End Association’s Planning and Development Committee have expressed concerns with the proposal.

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

YORK AVENUE ELEVATION

3

STOREFRONT AREA TO RECEIVE TILE SURROUND

ELEVATION OF PROPOSED ALTERATIONS

4

RENDERING OF PROPOSED STOREFRONT ALTERATIONS

TILE AND INSTALLATION DETAILS

5

B. DATE: ADDRESS: ITEM: JURISDICTION: STAFF: May 20, 2013 1000 Sidney Street Preliminary Review to construct a roof structure over existing patio Soulard Certified Local Historic District — Ward 9 Andrea Gagen, Cultural Resources Office

1000 SIDNEY

OWNER: John Lieluf – RPSLRD LLC APPLICANT: Michael R. Killeen RECOMMENDATION: That the Preservation Board deny the preliminary review for the proposed roof structure as it is not in compliance with the Soulard Local Historic District Standards.

6

THE PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construction a roof structure that would cover an existing patio that is currently in use for outdoor dining. RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Excerpt from Ordinance #62382, the Soulard Historic District: RESIDENTIAL APPEARANCE AND USE STANDARDS ARTICLE 2: EXISTING BUILDINGS 206 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 Model Example. Does not comply. The proposed roof structure, which is similar to a porch, extends nearly the entire length of the Semi-Public Façade to cover an area much larger than a porch or any type of historic appendage and is not based on a Model Example. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The Cultural Resources Office consideration of the criteria for appendages on Semi-public Facades led to 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 Façade and would be highly visible from Sidney Street.

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

7

LOCATION OF ROOF STRUCTURE AS SEEN FROM SIDNEY

PROPOSED SITE PLAN – NEW STRUCTURE SHOWN SHADED

8

ELEVATIONS OF PROPOSED ROOF STRUCTURE

9

C. DATE: ADDRESS: ITEM: JURISDICTION: STAFF: May 20, 2013 1157-59 S. Kingshighway New application: demolition Preservation Review District — Ward 17 Betsy Bradley, Director, Cultural Resources Office

1157-59 S KINGSHIGHWAY

OWNER: KJPRZ LLC APPLICANT: AALCO Wrecking CO. RECOMMENDATION: That the Preservation Board withhold approval of the demolition permit application until zoning approval or a building permit is secured.

10

RELEVANT LEGISLATION: 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 listed on the National Register, ii) within a National Register District, iii) for which National Register Designation is pending or iv) which is within a Preservation Review District established pursuant to Sections 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 received by his Office. 1157-59 S. Kingshighway is located in a Preservation Review District. St. Louis City Ordinance #64832 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 immediately upon 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 previously approved by ordinance or adopted by the Planning and Urban Design Commission shall be approved except in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted. Not applicable. B. Architectural Quality. Structure's architectural merit, uniqueness, and/or historic value shall be evaluated and the structure classified as high merit, merit, qualifying, or noncontributing based upon: 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 to the streetscape and neighborhood. Demolition of sound high merit structures shall not be approved 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 upper story. Designed by architect K. Jansson, it was built by the Swedish National Society. A central entrance has a terra-cotta surround that with an arched head, its tympanum displaying the building’s 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 in the second story light the open space, known as the Swedish National Society Hall. The date of

11

construction, 1913, is included on the parapet. While conventional in form and articulation, the terra-cotta pilasters on the ground story have a design that seems to be Swedish-inspired. The one-story addition to the rear dates from 1951. The Swedish National Society was established in St. Louis in 1889. The number of charter members has not been determined; it is thought that only men born in Sweden were eligible for membership and that the Society operated a burial insurance operation, as many ethnic societies did. By 1904 the group had a band and took part in the parade opening the World’s Fair. The Society grew to nearly 200 members during the 1910s and decided to construct its own building funded by its members who purchased individual shares. At the dedication of the building in 1913, 38 new members were installed. The number of Swedish-Americans living in St. 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, a group 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 the upper 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 other groups and lists several unions, service groups, political clubs, veterans groups, and the Swedish National Society, and its counterpart, the Linnea Society of Swedish women as tenants of the Swedish 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 storefront housed taverns during the 1950s and 1960s. The membership of the Society had fallen to less than 40 during the late 1960s. The group disbanded in 1969 and planned to sell the building and distribute the assets among its remaining members. While the Swedish immigrants were not a major ethnic-American population in St. Louis, the group and its members represent the diversity of the City’s residents. A building may have historic value and it is in this way that the Swedish National Society Building may be eligible for listing in the National Register if enough information can be found to develop an argument for local significance under Criterion A – Ethnic History. For this reason the Swedish National Society 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, the application for demolition shall be approved except in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted. The remaining or salvageable portion(s) of the structure shall be evaluated to determine the extent of reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration required to obtain a viable structure.

12

1. Sound structures with apparent potential for adaptive reuse, reuse and or resale shall generally not be approved for demolition unless application of criteria in subsections A, D, F and 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 any remaining portion(s) of the building will be evaluated. Viability of walls which would be exposed by demolition and the possibility of diminished value resulting from the partial demolition of a building, or of one or more buildings in a group of buildings, will be considered. Not applicable. D. Neighborhood Effect and Reuse Potential. 1. Neighborhood Potential: Vacant and vandalized buildings on the block face, the present condition 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 the early twentieth century. The Swedish National Society, which was flanked by service stations to the north and south in the 1920s, is the surviving building from the initial development. 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 demolition as part of the project under consideration. A large new apartment complex stands across Kingshighway. Older residential neighborhoods flank the Kingshighway frontage on both the east and west. While the Swedish National Society Building does not have an immediate historic context, its setting was always quite varied. 2. Reuse Potential: The potential of the structure for renovation and reuse, based on similar cases within the City, and the cost and extent of possible renovation shall be evaluated. Structures located within currently well maintained blocks or blocks undergoing upgrading renovation will generally not be approved for demolition. The potential for reuse of a commercial block building is moderate to high on a highlytraveled street. Small businesses have occupied the storefront spaces but with a relatively high degree of turnover. The open upper floor could accommodate a use that requires a large, open space or be partitioned for commercial or office use. 3. Economic Hardship: The Office shall consider the economic hardship which may be experienced by the present owner if the application is denied. Such consideration may include, 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 tax abatement, if applicable, and the potential for economic growth and development in the area. No evidence of economic hardship in terms of the rehabilitation of this building has been submitted as the application is for demolition. E. Urban Design. The Office shall evaluate the following urban design factors:

13

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 significantly impact 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 Swedish National Society Building would not have an effect on a blockfront with a strong, coherent character. 4. The elimination of uses will be considered; however, the fact that a present and original or historic use of a site does not conform to present zoning or land use requirements in no way shall require that such a nonconforming use to be eliminated. Not applicable. F. Proposed Subsequent Construction. Notwithstanding the provisions of any ordinance to the contrary, the Office shall evaluate proposed subsequent construction on the site of proposed demolition 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 the integrity of the existing streetscape and block face. Proposal for creation of vacant land by demolition(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 directly adjoining/abutting facilities require additional off-street parking; The applicant proposes to demolish both the Swedish National Society Building and a former fast-food restaurant on the parcel to the north. He is proposing to construct a new building that has a S. Kingshighway façade that is quite similar to the Swedish National Society building and that incorporates the terra-cotta elements of the 1913 building. The new building would appear to have two storefronts on the ground story and is shown as having the same number of windows as the existing building, placed further apart in a wider façade. The new building is proposed because the location of the Swedish Society building so close to the building adjacent to the south does not allow incorporation of a drive-up window, 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 a restaurant, as shown in Exhibit A, would equal the contribution of the existing building in the blockface. 3. The proposed construction will be architecturally compatible with the existing block face as to building setbacks, scale, articulation and rhythm, overall architectural character and general use of exterior materials or colors;

14

The new building is shown at the building line, a location shared by the building to the south. Maintaining an existing character of architecture on the blockfront is not particularly applicable 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 the application 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 occupied property and if common control of both properties is documented, favorable consideration will generally be given to appropriate reuse proposals. Appropriate uses shall include those allowed under the current zoning classification, reuse for expansion of an existing conforming, commercial or industrial use or a use consistent with a presently conforming, adjoining use group. Potential for substantial expansion of an existing adjacent commercial use will be given due consideration. The proposed demolition and redevelopment are for commercial use. H. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures (garages, sheds, etc.) and ancillary structures will be processed for immediate resolution. Proposed demolition of frame garages or accessory structures internal to commercial or industrial sites will, in most cases, be approved unless that structure demonstrates high significance under the other criteria listed herein, which shall be expressly noted. The building is not an accessory structure. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The Cultural Resource Office’s consideration of the criteria for demolition led to these preliminary findings: • 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 disbanded and 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 a Qualifying property. There is no potential for the property to be a contributing property in a National Register historic district. • The commercial area on S. Kingshighway does not present any deterrent to the rehabilitation and reuse of the building.

15

• • •

The reuse potential of the building is at least moderate and the zoning is Local Commercial and Office. The loss of the building would not have a notable impact in terms of urban design on the blockfront of such varied character. New construction is proposed for the site, a two-story brick building of similar form that would incorporate 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 Swedish National Society Building as part of the S. Kingshighway streetscape. A new restaurant with a drivethrough could be developed without the demolition of the Swedish National Society Building, which provides authentic early twentieth-century architecture and texture. The proposed new building requires the consolidation of two parcels and zoning and building permit approvals. The Cultural Resources Office recommends that the Board instruct the Cultural Resources Office to withhold approval of the demolition permit application until zoning approval or a building permit is secured.

FAÇADE

16

TERRA COTTA PANEL AND PILASTERS AT ENTRANCE

NORTH SIDE AND REAR FAÇADES

17

EXHIBIT A. PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION

PPROPOSED FLOOR PLAN

18

PROIPOSED SITE PLAN

19

D. DATE: SUBJECT: ADDRESS: JURISDICTION: STAFF: May 20, 2013 Appeal of Director’s Denial to retain vinyl windows installed without a permit 5928 Pershing Avenue Skinker-DeBaliviere Local Historic District — Ward 28 Andrea Gagen, Preservation Planner, Cultural Resources Office

5928 PERSHING

OWNER: Lucky Group LLC/Mr. Lu APPLICANT: James Ragland RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Preservation Board uphold the Director’s Denial, as the windows do not comply with the SkinkerDeBaliviere Historic District Standards.

20

RELEVANT LEGISLATION: 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. Renovations involving structural changes to window or door openings are permit required work and thus must be reviewed by the Landmarks and Urban Design Commission. Design of these renovations should be compatible in scale, materials, and color with existing features of the building and with adjacent historical structures. When on the front of a building, wood or factory-finished colored metal is the preferred material for frames of new and replacement storm windows and screens and storm and screen doors. Awnings on the front of a house should 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 aluminum coil stock. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The Cultural Resource Office’s consideration of the criteria for windows led to these preliminary findings: • 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 ganged windows. • The brickmold has been wrapped, although the owner is willing to remove it. Based on the Preliminary findings, the Cultural Resources Office recommends that the Preservation Board uphold the Director’s denial of the application for the windows as they are not in compliance with the Skinker-DeBaliviere Historic District Standards.

21

FRONT ELEVATION BEFORE WINDOW INSTALLATION, SHOWING HISTORIC WOOD WINDOWS BEHIND ALUMINUM STORMS

FIRST STORY WINDOWS – ORIGINALLY A SINGLE, 10/1 WINDOW

DETAIL OF WINDOW AND WRAPPING

22

VINYL WINDOWS AT SECOND STORY

VINYL WINDOWS AT BASEMENT

23

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

3324-26 MISSOURI AVE.

OWNER/APPLICANT: Will Lieberman/Peter Hammond, Architect RECOMMENDATION: That the Preservation Board uphold the Director’s denial as the installed windows do not meet the Benton Park Historic District standards.

24

RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Excerpt from Benton Park Historic District Ordinance #67175: 203 Windows Comment: 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 elements in 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 following exception: double-hung windows may be changed to single-hung. 203.2 Windows at Semi-Public Facades 1. 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 Façade a. Materials: Replacement windows may be constructed of the following materials: i. Wood; ii. Vinyl-coated wood; or iii. 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 original elements 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 shall be maintained with a decorative element of wood, finished metal or plastic which appears as wood. c. Brick Molding i. 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 and materials, but are not appropriately sized: the openings have been blocked down with additional framing and trim and the brickmold, which is stained a dark wood color, does not replicate the original or historic brickmold.

25

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The Cultural Resources Office consideration of the criteria for replacement windows in historic buildings in the Benton Park Local Historic District Standards and other factors led to these preliminary findings: • 3324 Missouri is located in the Benton Park Local Historic District. • The project is receiving substantial funding from the Community Development Authority. • The front façade 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 Cultural Resources Office on 3/25/2011. • Because the windows are inappropriately sized, the openings have been filled with additional framing and a wider than traditional-sized brick mold; • The front elevation and the south elevation are highly visible from the street; the north elevation is partially screened by an adjacent property and the rear façade is not visible. • The brickmold installed does not replicate the original brickmold in dimension or profile and has been stained instead of painted, as would have been done historically, further altering the appearance of the window openings and sash. • The Cultural Resources Office has received complaints from the neighborhood concerning the appearance of the windows. Based on the Preliminary findings, the Cultural Resources Office recommends that the Preservation Board uphold the denial of the building permit application to retain all the windows, as they do not comply with the Benton Park Historic District Standards. The Cultural Resources Office further recommends that the owner be required to replace the windows of the front and south façades with appropriately-sized windows but that he be allowed to retain the non-complaint windows on the north and rear facades.

FRONT FAÇADE WINDOW

SILL AND BRICKMOLD DETAIL

26

GOOGLE IMAGE SHOWING DEMOLISHED FRONT FAÇADE

SOUTH FAÇADE WINDOW

REAR FAÇADE

3324 MISSOURI BEFORE REHAB

AFTER FAÇADE RECONSTRUCTION

27

F. DATE: ADDRESS: ITEM: JURISDICTION: STAFF: May 20, 2013 2746 Utah Avenue Appeal of Demolition Permit Denial; Tabled from January Preservation Review District, National Register of Historic Place Historic District — Ward 9 Betsy Bradley, Director, Cultural Resources Office

2746 UTAH

OWNER: Kham Phao and Wandee Chareunsap represented by Pone Siharaj APPLICANT: Hughes Wrecking RECOMMENDATION: That the Preservation Board uphold the Director’s denial unless the economic feasibility of extensive repairs and reuse potential of the property indicate that demolition is appropriate.

28

APPEAL UPDATE: After hearing a review of the criteria to be considered for a demolition by Cultural Resources Office Director Betsy Bradley and testimony from the applicant and his representative, the Preservation Board decided to table the appeal for 90 (ninety) days and asked the applicant to list the property for sale 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. RELEVANT LEGISLATION: 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 listed on the National Register, ii) within a National Register District, iii) for which National Register Designation is pending or iv) which is within a Preservation Review District established pursuant to Sections 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 received by his Office. 2746 Utah is a contributing building in the Gravois Jefferson Streetcar Suburb National Register Historic District and is located in a Preservation Review District. St. Louis City Ordinance #64832 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 immediately upon 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 previously approved by ordinance or adopted by the Planning and Urban Design Commission shall be approved except in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted. Not applicable. B. Architectural Quality. Structure's architectural merit, uniqueness, and/or historic value shall be evaluated and the structure classified as high merit, merit, qualifying, or noncontributing based upon: Overall style, era, building type, materials, ornamentation, craftsmanship, site planning,

29

and whether it is the work of a significant architect, engineer, or craftsman; and contribution to the streetscape and neighborhood. Demolition of sound high merit structures shall not be approved by the Office. Demolition of merit or qualifying structures shall not be approved except in 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 it on the south side of the street. As it has no outstanding architectural design and no known historical 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, the application for demolition shall be approved except in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted. The remaining or salvageable portion(s) of the structure shall be evaluated to determine the extent of reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration required to obtain a viable structure. 1. Sound structures with apparent potential for adaptive reuse, reuse and or resale shall generally not be approved for demolition unless application of criteria in subsections A, D, F and G, four, six and seven indicates demolition is appropriate. The condition of this building, which may still be sound, was compromised by a fire that occurred in August 2012. Additional damage that took place during early January 2013 includes an area where the brick wall is not intact on one side elevation and a smaller area of loss on the rear elevation. 2. Structurally attached or groups of buildings. The impact of the proposed demolition on any remaining portion(s) of the building will be evaluated. Viability of walls which would be exposed by demolition and the possibility of diminished value resulting from the partial demolition of a building, or of one or more buildings in a group of buildings, will be considered. Not applicable. D. Neighborhood Effect and Reuse Potential. 1. Neighborhood Potential: Vacant and vandalized buildings on the block face, the present condition 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 the east has been vacant since 1998 when a building was demolished. The house that stands to the 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 2009 and came into the LRA inventory in 2012. The unstable below-grade condition seems to vary. Although 2746 has developed a slight lean and racking, 2748 does not exhibit instability and the three buildings east of 2740 also appear to be stable. It seems likely that two 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 similar cases within the City, and the cost and extent of possible renovation shall be evaluated. 30

Structures located within currently well maintained blocks or blocks undergoing upgrading renovation will generally not be approved for demolition. The potential for continued use of this property was strong prior to the fire, assuming that its foundation is stable. As a contributing building in a National Register historic district, it is eligible to be a rehabilitation tax credit project. 3. Economic Hardship: The Office shall consider the economic hardship which may be experienced by the present owner if the application is denied. Such consideration may include, 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 tax abatement, 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 been submitted 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 significantly impact 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 in flux; if two leaning buildings are demolished, the block face will have a much more inconsistent 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 second building could further the loss of continuity, but the two lots together could be a building site 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 individual architectural significance. 4. The elimination of uses will be considered; however, the fact that a present and original or historic use of a site does not conform to present zoning or land use requirements in no way shall require that such a nonconforming use to be eliminated. Not applicable. F. Proposed Subsequent Construction. Notwithstanding the provisions of any ordinance to the contrary, the Office shall evaluate proposed subsequent construction on the site of proposed demolition 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 building owners.

31

2. The proposed construction would equal or exceed the contribution of the structure to the integrity of the existing streetscape and block face. Proposal for creation of vacant land by demolition(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 directly adjoining/abutting facilities require additional off-street parking; At this time, the owner is proposing no new construction. The property would be sold as a side 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 as to building setbacks, scale, articulation and rhythm, overall architectural character and general 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 the application date. Not applicable. G. Commonly Controlled Property. If a demolition application concerns property adjoining occupied property and if common control of both properties is documented, favorable consideration will generally be given to appropriate reuse proposals. Appropriate uses shall include those allowed under the current zoning classification, reuse for expansion of an existing conforming, commercial or industrial use or a use consistent with a presently conforming, adjoining use group. Potential for substantial expansion of an existing adjacent commercial use will be given due consideration. Not applicable. H. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures (garages, sheds, etc.) and ancillary structures will be processed for immediate resolution. Proposed demolition of frame garages or accessory structures internal to commercial or industrial sites will, in most cases, be approved unless that structure demonstrates high significance under the other criteria listed herein, which shall be expressly noted. The building is not categorized as an accessory structure. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The Cultural Resource Office’s consideration of the criteria for demolition led to these preliminary findings: • 2746 Utah, a contributing building in a National Register Historic District and therefore a Merit building, is located in a Preservation Review District. • The building does not have any individual architectural distinction as it represents a common residential building type.

32

• • •

A fire has damaged the interior, charred some of the exterior brick, likely made some of the building’s mortar friable, and since the fire, additional damage has occurred that includes a void caused by the loss of a window and surrounding brick and a smaller area of loss of the brick wall. The surrounding buildings on the block face indicate that there is below-grade subsidence that is destabilizing some of the foundations on the block and therefore the immediate setting and reuse 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 economic feasibility 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 finds that it is not economically feasible to rehabilitate the building after the extensive fire damage and the obvious below-grade instability of this portion of the blockfront.

FAÇADE

REAR ELEVATION

AREA OF COLLAPSE IN EAST SIDE WALL

LOSS OF BRICK IN REAR ELEVATION

33

PORCH

NARROW GANGWAY

BUILDINGS TO EAST

BUILDINGS TO WEST

34

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful