“Spot Zoning” For St. Aloysius?

Faced with a stumbling block at the Preservation Review Board last week word on the street is that Alderman Joe Vollmer is considering introducing a bill to the Board of Alderman to exclude the single parcel in question from the Preservation Review District. If so, this would sound like “spot zoning” to me.

From Law.com:

n. a provision in a general plan which benefits a single parcel of land by creating a zone for use just for that parcel and different from the surrounding properties in the area. Example: in a residential neighborhood zoned for single-family dwellings with a minimum of 10,000 square feet, the corner service station property is zoned commercial. Spot zoning is not favored, since it smacks of favoritism and usually annoys neighbors. [emphasis added] An existing commercial business can be accommodated by a “zoning variance” (allowing a non-conforming use for the time being) or a “grandfathered” right to continue a use existing when the zoning plan was adopted and which will terminate if the building is torn down.

Spot Zoning typically applies to say residential verses commercial — the use zone for a particular parcel. At this point I’m not certain how Missouri law applies to Historic & Preservation Review Districts but these do form a type of zoning. Any attorney out there know more about spot zoning?

What we do not want are Aldermen excluding individual parcels or entire neighborhoods from the review process. If so these neighborhoods risk losing the buildings that give them the character that people seek. The Preservation Review ordinance has excellent criteria and should not be skirted simply because they don’t like the outcome.

– Steve

Roberts Brothers To Transform Former North St. Louis School

I often spend considerable time writing about projects gone bad. The last week was consumed with the possible destruction of a historic church. It is the holidays and I needed relief from the negative. I needed something positive to write about.

The Roberts Brothers delivered, big time.

They will soon embark on a major task — turning this long vacant public school building into apartments. Why not condos you ask? To utilize federal historic tax credits the project must be investment property, not owner occupied. I can imagine these going condo after the minimum requirement has been met.

The Enright school is located on Enright just West of Union (google map). For years people have told newcomers to St. Louis not to live North of Delmar. Until recently this ‘advice’ was also included in a guide to students at Saint Louis University Medical School (click here). This was and is about race and class.

But if we wish to grow our city we must get over this old way of thinking. North St. Louis neighborhoods must become increasingly racially and economically diverse. This project by the Roberts Brothers will do wonders to that end.


… Continue Reading

Old North St. Louis Is Evolving Into A Youthful Neighbor to Downtown

Old North St. Louis, just a short walk North of downtown St. Louis, is emerging as a happening neighborhood for the younger set.

My first visit to Old North St. Louis was with a co-worker driving me to Crown Candy Kitchen in the Fall of 1990. It was dark and I had only been in St. Louis for a couple of months. I had heard the rumors of North St. Louis being a place to avoid. Still, I was curious about this wonderful place for some great ice cream. At night the neighborhood looked eerie. Not long after that visit to the Crown Candy I would meet a woman that lived in the neighborhood. In January 1991 I attended their annual pot-luck dinner. By March 1991 I moved from the CWE to a small 3-room shotgun for the unheard of price of $75/month. I had just turned 24.

I lived in the neighborhood from March 1991 through August 1994, when I bought a two-family in Dutchtown. I had considered staying in ONSTL but the buildings available for rehab were in poor repair. I looked at many buildings and drew many concepts for renovation. Ultimately, rehab costs were far beyond my modest means. Plus, at 24 I just wasn’t ready to take on a major rehab project. In retrospect, I could have purchased something that was “livable” at the time although getting loans in the area was a challenge.

Things have changed. Back then we were trying to get people to recognize the name Old North St. Louis as many maps still called the area Murphy-Blair, after a nearby housing project. The neighborhood has a great new website whereas I was the first to computerize the neighborhood newsletter (on my Mac Classic). Homes have been sold and bought through the regular real estate MLS system. More buildings have been renovated and many new homes are under construction. A new wave of 20-somethings are moving in and bringing new life to the neighborhood.

A couple of weeks ago I attended a party at the recently rehabbed home of one such 20-something couple. They lived in an apartment next door until they were able to move into the house earlier this year. By coincidence, I lived in the same apartment a decade earlier. This apartment was my second in the neighborhood, a block North of the first one. It was still a 3-room shotgun but it was larger than the first and had a bigger bathroom. The daughter of a neighbor a few doors down the street, just a young girl when I lived there, now lives in the same apartment.

Back to the party.

The crowd was young.

Not everyone, but most. How awesome! I talked with a number of my former neighbors but mostly ended up talking to new people that now live in ONSTL.

The old homes are getting rehabbed, new homes are being built and other improvements are in the works. The neighborhood is a short walk or bike ride from downtown. I enjoyed living there from 1991-94 and I must say the idea of living there once again is appealing.

– Steve

No Deed Restriction Requiring Demolition of St. Aloysius

At last night’s Preservation Board hearing it was repeatedly stated by developer Jim Wohlert and Father Vince Bommarito that the sale contract required the demolition of the church buildings. This has also been told to parishioners and neighbors to get their support. Today I have documented proof this was false.

The Archdiocese has a standard contract and a standard attachment with only two restrictions. Such requirements become part of a deed on a property as “deed restrictions.” This is what was used in the sale of St. Aloysius back on 10/27/05 and recorded on 11/1/05. How do I know? Simple, a few minutes and $11.00 at the Recorder of Deeds’ office and I was able to get a copy of the 5-page document. It is called public records.

Again, the recorded deed only has two restrictions, the same they are using for all recent church sales. The first is the name of the church “or any derivative” cannot be used on the property. This means you couldn’t have the St. Aloysius Bed & Breakfast, the St. Aloysius Lofts or the St. Aloysius Manor subdivision. This restriction makes sense to protect the memories associated with the name of the closed parish.

The second restriction limits the use only while the church building remains standing. This prevents their church from being used as a place that would perform abortions, give tattoos or a club that sells alcohol. It also prohibits another church promoted as “Roman Catholic , but not possessing the express ecclesiastical approval of the Roman Catholic Church” from occupying the property. Again, this second restriction would be removed once the church was razed leaving only the first restriction of the name intact.

Earlier today I hand delivered a copy of the deed to Rollin Stanley, Director of the City’s Planning & Urban Design Agency. I also submitted a “Freedom of Information Act” request for the audio recording of the hearing.

If you’d like to read the deed yourself, just click here (PDF). The restrictions are on page five of the document.

The scary part is Mary “One” Johnson was ready to approve the demolition based on a contractually required deed restriction that, as it turns out, doesn’t exist. Even more scary is that I hear she may be the next chair of the Preservation Board.

[UPDATED 12/21/05 @ 8:45AM – I want to clarify a couple of points. I’m not a real estate attorney but I do have some experience in this areas. Agreements are placed in real estate contracts all the time and not every detail is recorded as a deed restriction. For example, the standard contract they are using to sell the churches permits the church to remove the stained glass windows and other artifacts “prior to closing” and then requires the church to replace the stained glass windows with glass windows. These types of things that affect a transaction prior to closing do not typically get recorded with the deed. What does get recorded as a deed restrictions are those actions that need to be enforceable after the sale has closed. In most cases, a deed restriction is the only way to guarantee the wishes of a seller.

But the seller typically cannot use a deed restriction to require a buyer to do something after they’ve bought a property as that is impossible to enforce. Futhermore, a deed restriction that is not legal (such as prohibiting a race from buying the property) cannot be enforced. Even if the church had included a deed restriction to require the demolition of the buildings, which they did not, it is highly doubtful in my mind they’d be able to enforce that requirement given that it is not up to them to legally determine if the buildings can be razed. – SLP]

– Steve

St. Aloysius Saved — For Now!

A week ago I was convinced the Preservation Board was going to rubber stamp a 20+ home subdivision on the site of the former St. Aloysius church.

But a lot can happen in a week.

Earlier tonight the Preservation Board voted 5-1 to deny the developer the necessary demolition permit. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a final denial. This meeting, it turns out, was a preliminary review (counter to the posted agenda). This means the developer can come back to the table with a new proposal. They may propose a compromise but based on comments made on Fox 2 following the meeting it looks like they will come back and seek full demolition again.

The vote to deny the demolition permit followed a motion to approve the project with qualifications noted in the agenda. That motion was rejected by a vote of 4-2.

Before the votes were testimony for and against the demolition request. Speaking in favor of demolition were developer James Wohlert, Father Vincent Bommarito, and Alderman Joe Vollmer. I spoke against demolition along with a representative of the Landmark’s Association and two licensed architects that are highly experienced at renovating old buildings. I’m not going to give you a play by play of the nearly two hours spent on St. Aloysius. Instead I want to highlight a few things.

The developer who has been working on this for months submitted a letter from an engineer in an attempt to show why he should be granted a demolition permit. This, you’d think, was prepared months ago when evaluating the building for reuse. No! This was prepared this morning! Yes, it was not until today that an engineer was consulted and asked to prepare any sort of evaluation. And what an evaluation it is:

Dear Jim:

At your request, I walked through the subject structure with you this morning for the purpose of reviewing the probable causes of existing cracking in unreinforced masonry walls. This letter summarizes the conditions reviewed, and provides an assessment of probable causes of masonry cracking.

St. Alouicious Church [spelling per letter] is reported to have been constructed in 1925. The conditions and type of construction viewed are consistent with a structure of this approximate age. The structure is constructed of unreinforced masonry walls, with wood roof framing. The north and south walls supporting the main sanctuary roof are a nominal 2-stories in height, with 1-story masonry walls forming sides on both the north and south sides of the building. Numerous cracks are visually evident in the south, east, and north walls. Photos taken at the sit ethis morning are attached to this letter.

The letter goes on describing each and every crack and what the cause might be for each. Let’s cut to the chase:

The likely cause of masonry distress appears to be foundation settlement at the northeast and southeast building corners. The diagonal and vertical masonry cracking pattern evident is consistent with this condition. The cause of the settlement is unknown, but may be due to a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, leaking downspout drain and/or sewer lines, swelling soils, poor drainage, uneven bearing stresses in foundations, and inadequate compaction of bearing soils.

The existing structure does not appear to be an immediate collapse hazard; however, the conditions noted herein will likely worsen without remedial repair work. Before masonry repairs are made, a foundation investigation should be conducted to determine the likely causes of the settlement, and foundation stabilization would likely be required, which could include underpinning. A cost study would be required to determine the probable costs associated with such stabilization and repair work, which could be relatively costly.

I do agree with part of the above, that a study should be done to evaluate costs to stabilize the structure. Had the developer given any thought to reusing the buildings he would have already had such a report prepared.

Father Bommarito argued it would be too painful to see the church used as anything other than a church. He cited a case where a former church ended up being used as a warehouse. I’ll agree that I’d rather not see this lovely grouping of buildings used as a warehouse but I wouldn’t mind if that kept them around until someone was ready to convert them to residential use. The question Father Bommarito could not answer is why St. Aloysius must be razed yet other closed churches like St. Boniface can be sold for condos. Are we to believe the former parishioners of St. Aloysius are so different than parishioners all the other churches closed at the same time?

But the bigger issue was an alleged contractual clause requiring demolition of the buildings by the previous owner, the Saint Louis Archdiocese. This was the focus of much of the debate. Neither the developer nor the priest could produce a copy of the real estate sales contract. One member of the Preservation Board, Mary “One” Johnson, acted as if this unseen contract was… gospel. Initially she acted as if the sale hadn’t gone through but then it was pointed out the sale had already closed. She still argued this purported clause must be observed by the Preservation Board. I wanted to scream!!!

I’ve seen real estate clauses whereby a seller stipulates what a buyer cannot do after the sale. Examples are retail outlets will often indicate that a competitor cannot purchase/lease a property for a period of time. Other times a deed restriction is used to indicate that a property cannot be razed. In all examples of such clauses the buyer is restricted from doing something at a later date. In some cases a buyer can be required to do something — such as grant access to the seller to remove stained glass windows. But here is where the difference comes in. A clause that is counter to applicable law cannot be enforced. For example, I cannot sell a property I own to someone else and require them to only use the buildings for a brothel or the manufacture of crystal meth. I can write it in the contract but enforcing these clauses would be difficult. But Ms. Johnson attempted to argue the developer would face financial hardship if they were not granted the demolition permit because the contract requires demolition. I’m not a lawyer but experience tells me we have severability clauses for a reason — that if part of a contract is deemed invalid it does not invalidate the entire contract. I believe that is where this stands. The intent may have been to require demolition but ultimately that decision rests with the City of St. Louis, not the seller or buyer. The property has changed hands and by denying the demolition permit it will not revert back to the Archdiocese.

Members Mulligan, Fathman, Burse, Callow and Robinson did an outstanding job of questioning the testimony that was given. Richard Callow got some really funny jokes in as well, if only I had taped the hearing. I was highly disappointed by the general acceptance of the proposal by Johnson and Porrello.

This is not over.

The developer will be back.

So will we.

Watch this space for more action items!

– Steve