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

Tune Into KDHX Tonight for Latest on St. Aloysius

I’m scheduled to appear on KDHX’s ‘Collateral Damage‘ program this evening from 7pm to 7:30pm. Tune in to find out the latest on St. Aloysius and other interesting information!

– Steve

“Magnolia Square” To Replace St. Aloysius

Alderman Joe Vollmer on Friday introduced Board Bill 361 for first reading before the St. Louis Board of Alderman. It seems the Planning Commission gave approval to the “sketch plan” on December 7, 2005 with three conditions.

The first condition is a routine easement document. Second is the Planning Commission wants the developer to “explore the possibility of increasing the proposed 10′-long front yard setbacks.” The third items is for them to “explore ways to redesign the site’s Pearl Ave. blockface so as to enhance the vista (view corridor) of the site from Magnolia Ave. looking westward.”

The documents indicate the developer will ask for 10-year property tax abatement but at this time Alderman Vollmer has not yet introduced such legislation. The full bill is available for download which includes drawings and floor plans of the proposed construction. It is a 34 page, 12mb PDF document. Click here to view the full bill as introduced by Alderman Vollmer on Friday.

County-only Reliance Bank is listed as doing the financing for this project. The contact person is Kent Steinbrueck. I’ve already left Mr. Steinbrueck a voice message indicating my disappointment that his bank is financing a project that will destroy a small part of our history and put very suburban looking homes in its place. The bank’s phone number is (314) 842-3979 (you can use the directory to leave a voice mail), their fax number is (314) 842-3974 and finally their street address is 5401 S. Lindbergh Blvd St. Louis, MO 63123.

We can be pro-development and save these great buildings and setting for future generations to enjoy. The elected officials need to wake up and realize this or they may just find themselves joining Tom Bauer as an ex-alderman.

– Steve

Will The New Homes Be Built In 12 Months If St. Aloysius Is Razed?

Yes, another post on St. Aloysius. But this contains new information and a different take on why the Preservation Board should not authorize the demolition on Monday.

One aspect of the criteria used to evaluate demolition permits is that the new construction will be built within 12 months. How do they really determine this? Often they use a developer’s past history and financial means to make a judgement call. Here is where things, in this case, get murky.

The developer is Wohlert Company, LLC which, according to the Secretary of State, was founded earlier this year in July 2005. The builder, DiMartino Homes, LLC, was created in July 2003 (per the Secretary of State). Tax bills for DiMartino Homes are sent to the Wohlert home in Wildwood. From the DiMartino Homes website we learn a bit more about the connection between Wohlert & DiMartino:

DiMartino Homes was founded in 2004 by James and Marie (DiMartino) Wohlert and John and Julie DiMartino. Marie and John, children of the late Charles DiMartino, grew up on The Hill and appreciate the close knit community and the old world spirit that defines the neighborhood.

Okay, we have a brother and sister and their spouses. Before we get into St. Aloysius let’s look at what else they’ve got going on right now.

First is a new home at 2712 January on an adjacent site listed for $264,900 (MLS# 572232). This was built on the site of a smaller home that was razed so that two new homes could be built. The home at 2712 January is shown as being “tenant” occupied. The remainder of the site includes a sign indicating “Will Built to Suit.” This does not indicate to me a strong demand for new single family homes in this area.

At 5358 Southwest a multi-use building is being constructed. The site, which contained a single family house from 1900 and a very small 1950s commercial space, was purchased in August 2004. I do not know how long the building has been under construction. It includes a storefront space and living space above. It has a for sale sign on the front and no information on any future tenant for the storefront.

A few blocks away is an even more complicated development. At the NE corner of Reber Place and Sublette (5449 Reber for tax record search) is another two home development. In addition to DiMartio Homes LLC this development also lists AMR Homes LLC as a developer. The tax records show AMR Homes LLC as the owner of record. I happened to be at the Planning Commission meeting in the Spring when they approved replatting this single plot into what was then a proposal for three homes. LIke the house on January, a small and insignificant frame house was razed. But in the Spring it was not DiMartino that was involved. Digging through the records I found an interesting trail of property flipping. Starting in 9/7/04 Harry M. Fine Realty bought 5449 Reber from HFC Mortgage for $43,000. Two days later SJP Properties Inc bought the property. Western Continental Investments, LLC, the applicant to replat the land, acquired the property on 2/8/05 for $70,000. And finally on 5/12/05 AMR Homes LLC became the owner for a whopping $165,000. One house is under construction at this time, neither are pre-sold.
AMR Homes LLC includes James Wohlpert as an organizer but lists its address in Fenton. Follow all that?

The current ownership of the former St. Aloysius Church has been debated here and on other sites. I can now set the record straight: The City of St. Louis lists the entire city block under one Tax/Parcel Number (4054-11-0010-0) at the address 5608 North Magnolia (the postal address for the 1964 school building). Public tax records show the Archdiocese sold the property to Wohlert Company, LLC on 10/27/2005 with a recording date of 11/1/2005 (document number 51101000229). The sale price was not listed on the online tax records (not that uncommon). This information can be viewed on the Assessor’s Lookup Page (just put in 5608 Magnolia as the address).

So we know the Archdiocese no longer owns or controls the property. We also know the Wohlert/DiMartino/AMR team have built a number of homes in the area and perhaps many more over the years. What we don’t know is if they can pull off a project valued in excess of $4,600,000 (23 homes x $200,000 each = $4.6 million). This is not meant as a slight to them but it just seems to be a big leap. Unlike the Doering Mansion last month, I’ve seen nothing to indicate any attempt being made to pre-sell these homes. I think the Preservation Board should demand to see an irrevocable letter of credit from a lending institution to cover the development cost on the project or the equivalent of pre-sale contracts before giving any authorization to forever remove such wonderful structures.

This developer/builder is also clearly all about building single family homes. That is made clear on their website:

By purchasing homes and businesses in need of repair and transforming them into modern single-family dwellings, they are helping to assure that Southwest Gardens and The Hill are among the most desired areas in the city to live for generations to come.

Simply because a single family home builder purchased the property does not obligate the city to grand a demolition permit. I’ve yet to find anything to show this developer/builder has any experience with adaptive reuse projects in the city. On the surface it seems they proposed what they know — single family houses.

I strongly urge the Preservation Board not to approve the proposed demolition on Monday. I would hope they’d postpone a decision until such time the developer can document (from an engineering, architectural and financial viewpoint) why the properties cannot have some combination of adaptive reuse on the East and new construction on the Western portion, and document they have the financial means to see their project to completion either in the form of a lender commitment or pre-sales. This information should be present for a true public hearing.

The meeting will be held Monday at 4pm at 1015 Locust, 12th Floor. If you wish to speak you will need to sign up prior to the meeting. This item is second on the agenda.

– Steve