Preservation Board Agenda Raises Legal Question
Seldom does the presence of an item on an agenda raise a question of legality but that is exactly the case with 3524 Victor. In March the owner appealed a staff denial to allow him to keep windows he installed, without a building permit, as these windows did not conform with the historic standards for the area. That is pretty much the process: staff denial followed by Preservation Board denial. Next step in the case of historic districts is to appeal to the planning commission.
But the item appeared once again in April. Apparently the Alderman, Stephen Conway, asked the board to reconsider. Gee, I guess those silly little ordinances don’t apply in the 8th Ward. In April some on the Preservation Board didn’t even want to discuss or vote on the issue as it seemed beyond them in where it should be in the process. I agreed. But, they voted once again to uphold the staff denial. The property owner, however, was not present at the meeting in April. For those keeping score, we’ve got one original staff denial and two board denials.
Is the third time a charm?
The enabling ordinances for the Cultural Resources Office and the Preservation Board are pretty clear when it comes to appeals. In some cases they go to the planning commission and in other cases directly to court. The staff and counsel, by placing this item on an agenda once again, are making a mockery of the system and setting a precedent where alderman can simply keep asking to have an item placed on the agenda month after month until they get the answer they are seeking.
Even more troubling is the Washington University Medical Center plan to raze now 32 houses they own in the Forest Park Southeast Neighborhood. For more information on this aspect please check out The Ecology of Absence as they’ve done a great job following these buildings.
– Steve
You may not like the process, but it does seem to be working. The answer is still “no”, the latest effort just appears to be delaying the inevitable.
The bigger question is balancing individual property rights with the damn-the-cost attitude of many in the preservation community. Especially in St. Louis, where there’s a huge stock of solid, older properties than can be ascribed with “historic” qualities (much like defining blight for emminent domain purposes), not every structure should be held to the same standard of correctness. While the goal of preserving “character” is admirable, it’s simply not a black-and-white issue, there are many shades of grey. A neglected property with old-but-correct windows does more damage to the fabric of an area than a renovated property with new, close-but-not-exactly-correct windows.
It sounds like this guy screwed up. He had good intentions, but out of both ignorance and bad information, spent what he could afford on new windows and likely will have to spend a lot more (that he likely can’t afford) to make the situation only marginally better (but historically “correct”). Come on, we all make mistakes, and this is all about splitting hairs, not improving the overall community!
[REPLY – Jim I actually like the process. My point here is that it is not being followed. The process is clear in the law and to step outside that which is prescribed is illegal.
We have a person that paid $220,000 for a house in a historic district in the city. He proceeds to “improve” the house by tearing out the original windows and removing the original facias and replacing with poorly detailed imitations. He didn’t think he needed any building permits to do this work but failed to check before proceeding. He also says had he known he would have been required to do a certain type window in front he would have done so.
But, back to my point. The process outlines how one appeals a Preservation Board decision. In this case I believe it would be to the Planning Commission. To have an alderman step in and alter the process set forth by ordinance is absurd. – SLP]
What was the board’s decision?
1. I agree the Aldreman should stay out of individual cases. Point individuals in the right direction, but don’t mess with the process on “the local level”. If you don’t like rules, change the ordinance, but don’t try to do an end run around the process.
2. I’m an architect, so I understand that you have to ask the right questions. However, even the city’s building division website is a bit misleading with the information it provides (in my mind, the historic district disclaimer should come first, not last):
“Some examples of work that generally do not require permits:
* Ordinary repairs to residential buildings and structures up to four (4) units;
* tuckpointing, plaster patching, exterior and interior painting, floor sanding and refinishing, floor tile, carpeting, replacement of flooring with like materials, wall paper, cabinet installation;
* repair or replacement of gutters and downspouts;
applications of pre-finished aluminum, steel or vinyl on soffits, fascia boards, rake boards and overhangs;
* replacement or repair of existing windows and frames, whenever no modification is made to the opening; installation of storm windows and doors, glazing and glass replacement;
* replacement or repair of exterior doors and non-fire rated interior doors whenever no modification is made to the opening;
* sidewalks and driveways within property lines provided the surface drainage water does not adversely effect the adjacent property or create a nuisance;
* exterior stairs and/or steps which are on grade and not attached to the structure and within property lines;
* paved areas for residential use on the same lot as the primary structure, without roof, covers or enclosures;
* site work, landscaping, excavation of fill creating a permanent change in property elevation less than 6″ along property lines;
* fixed or retractable awnings that do not project over property lines and not 40 square feet in projected area;
* wall panelling applied directly to wall surfaces; acoustical ceiling tile applied directly to ceiling surfaces;
* installation of battery-operated smoke detectors;
* small accessory buildings 50 square feet in area or less, provided such accessory buildings maintain setbacks required by the Zoning Ordinance;
* above-ground swimming pools and in-ground swimming pools less than 24″ water depth with a surface area of less than 250 square feet;
* roof replacement when done with like material and replacement of 25% or less of the roof sheathing; new aluminum, steel or vinyl exterior siding with no change to existing openings;
* replacement of existing fencing, same height, material and location in the rear or side yards;
retaining walls 18″ or less in height;
* non-dish radio or television antennae 12 feet or less in height; tents smaller than 1,000 square feet;
* statues on private property.
However property located within a City Historic District or is a City Landmark requires approval of exterior painting, gutters and downspouts, windows, doors, tuckpointing, all fences, awning and canopies and similar exterior work. In most instances a building permit is required by the Cultural Resources Office even though it is not required by the Building Code. This is done to protect the exterior appearance of the building. Copies of design standards for the 14 historic districts or 112 landmarks can be obtained by contacting the Cultural Resources Office at (314) 622-3400 or from the Register’s Office in City Hall.”
I also think that the process established in the enabling ordinance for the Preservation Board is good. What is not good is that other city ordinances basically make the preservation review process unenforceable. And what is really bad in this matter is that an alderman pushed not to thwart the process through legislation or other means but from within, where he legally has no standing.
The Board, by the way, voted to uphold staff’s denial.