Aldermanic Options for Razing St. Aloysius

My last post on St. Aloysius had to do with the notion of effectively spot zoning the one city block by removing only it from the City’s Preservation Review ordinance. A couple of others options exist for Alderman Vollmer to go around the appointed volunteer body that reviews demolition applications.

First is to pass an ordinance removing the 10th Ward or much of the ward from the Preservation Review ordinance. By doing so he avoids the look of favoritism for a single property owner, in this case a private developer from Wildwood. This could have dire consequences for the ward in the future.

When a building owner applies for a demolition permit the City’s Building Division checks to see if it falls within a historic district (local or national) or within a preservation review district. If so, it seeds the request over to the cultural resources office for review. The staff at Cultural Resources looks at the building in question as well as the criteria of the enabling ordinance to make a judgement call. This was done to give some oversight so that we don’t accidently erase buildings of value. They staff routinely approves demolition of buildings after reviewing the criteria. In the case of St. Aloysius, they approved two of the six structures on the site. The other four they sent to the Preservation Board for a decision. This is a valuable process for protecting our heritage.

Removing all or part of the 10th Ward from this process will mean buildings could be razed without any public input.

The other option Alderman Vollmer may seek is a Chapter 99 Development Plan. In short this is a process of blighting the property and passing an ordinance for the redevelopment. This is complicated and the public doesn’t generally follow along. Of course, the other 27 aldermen in the city will use “aldermanic courtesy” and approve the ordinance no matter how they or their constituents feel about the damaging affects it will have on the city as a whole. The city has a brief summary of the process which you can read here.

Finally check out the Suburban Journal today. The Southwest City Journal has an article by Shawn Clubb titled “Developer to appeal decision on St. Aloysius.” [Note, the Post-Dispatch and Suburban Journals do not offer permanent links to their articles so I cannot provide valid links to them as much as I’d like to.]

The alderman, developer and neighborhood executive director are claiming nobody objected to the proposal. I’m getting calls and emails from neighbors thanking me saying they either weren’t aware of what was going on or thought it was a done deal so why bother.

I seriously doubt any of them ever asked the neighborhood a balanced question like, “Would you rather see all the buildings razed and replaced with new single family homes or would you like to see the church, rectory and convent converted to condos with new single family homes on the west end of the site?”

– Steve

“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

No Public Meetings In The Next Month?

As my parents are getting ready for us to drive first to my niece’s house, and then to one of my brothers’ house, for Christmas I thought I’d get a little stuff done. First on my list is to look into the upcoming Planning Commission meeting.

I’ve attended Planning Commission meetings before but I typically don’t track them as closely as I do the Preservation Board. That is about to change. The first step is finding out the meeting date, time and location.

I went to the city’s Public Meetings & Notices page and got what you see at right.

“There are no public meetings listed at this time.”

I used the “in the past 12 months” tab to determine the Planning Commission meets on the first Wednesday of each month at 5:30pm (1015 Locust, 12th Floor Board Room). This makes the next meeting of the Planning Commission on January 4th, 2006.

Other meetings likely occurring in the next 30 days, but not listed, are the St. Louis Development Corporation, Tax Increment Financing and Land Reutilization Authority. For those of us that don’t subscribe to the paper that publishes printed notices, the city’s website is our only means of public notice. Most likely this is a first of the year software issue, not a lack of actual meetings.

What does it say about our city’s website that the very site designed to tell us about meetings 31 days in advance has failed to actually do so. Is anyone actually checking their work or responsible for making improvements? This was the same problem last year.

I did a post on December 5, 2004 about this site. From what I can tell, nothing has changed in over a year. Most of the public notices listed don’t give you enough information to know what they are talking about. Many don’t have agendas. The ones that do have agendas, like the Planning Commission, often reference obscure information like city blocks and proposed project names so unless you are part of the inner circle you won’t know what it is about.

We need people to be involved in this city, at all levels. If we are going to get to that point we will need our elected and appointed officials to make information available to the public. Together we can work wonders for this city.

– 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