Here is a quick look at all the items from last night’s Preservation Board meeting in the order in which there were considered. For the agenda click here.
F: 3524 Victor/Compton Hill Historic District
New property owner buys house for $220K. Proceeds to rip out windows and cornice and replace with poor substitutes —- all without a permit. Staff denies request to keep non-conforming items. At March 2006 meeting he is told he must replace the front windows with appropriate windows as well as redo the cornice differently.
Window issue appears on the April 2006 — even though the board has taken final action and cannot legally take up issue again. Applicant is a no show at meeting but board votes to reaffirm prior month’s decision to require windows to be replaced with some having an appropriate profile.
May 2006 and the window issue is back. Why? The aldermen asked that it be reconsidered even though the law does not provide for such requests. Staff, Board and Board’s legal counsel give in to the request of Alderman to reconsider. Thankfully, board once again rejects the appeal and requires owner to replace windows. Alderman Stephen Conway is up for re-election in March 2007.
A – 1213-21 Dolman Street/Lafayette Square Historic District
Propsal is to build new townhoues with one attached to a very sold single room structure. Everyone, myself included, thinks this is an outstanding and well designed infill project. Board grants preliminary approval.
B: 2736-38 Geyer Ave/Fox Park Historic District
Proposal is to construct a new two unit building and one single unit building. Staff is seeking additional brick return on the sides of the proposed buildings although the ordinance does not require any brick return. A citizen that lives on the block in question raised concerns about the use of brick vs. stone window sills and the detailing on the cornice. Board granted preliminary approval.
C: 1418 Mississippi Ave/Lafayette Square Historic District
Proposal is very complicated. The stunning 2-story house facing Lafayette Square at one time had a third floor. That floor was destroyed in the big 1896 tornado. The owner is seeking to rebuild the original third floor. That much was pretty easy. Where it gets more complicated is the issue of a side porch, fencing and a pool. The owner has a very large side yard that happens to abut a little park located at Mississippi & Park (across from Ricardo’s). Since the side of the house technically faces a park and street the question of this being a public vs. intermediate vs. private facade was raised. The Board voted to defer the matter for now so that staff & the architects could continue working out details before coming back to the Board.
D: Forest Park Southeast Demolitions/Preservation Review District
The short version is the staff & applicant (a development arm of Wash U Medical and BJC) agreed to 22 demolitions rather than 32. The board approved those 22 demolitions. I argued before the Board the requirements of the ordinance had not been met by the applicant (financial hardship, verification buildings could not be rehabbed, etc…) and that until such evidence is shown along with something indicating what will replace these houses they should remain standing.
Forest West Properties, the owner, indicated they want to clear the properties for new construction. North of Chouteau they are wanting to do high-density housing. I said I could very well support those demolitions if I could see the alternative but in the absence of such alternative it was hard to support demolishing structures that to the trained eye could be rehabbed.
Mary “One” Johnson, the Board VP, attempted to argue the applicants case for him by saying new housing will help get things going in the area. What they failed to realize is those attempts and level and build new have not been successful in this neighborhood in the past. It was attempted in the 70’s and that new construction didn’t stem the evacuation. New construction in the last five years hasn’t made a huge impact either. Clearing many more houses will only send the message that old modest housing is worthless and the bulldozer will come for your house next.
E: 4961 Penrose St/City Park
This one is a real shame. A very cute house built in 1902 became part of Penrose Park just three years later in 1905. According to the staff report, it was used a park keeper’s house for many decades. The City’s construction administration arm, The Board of Public Service, claims the demolition has been planned since at least 1997. A park road is being re-routed away from Kingshighway to simplify an interchange. But the proposed route for the new road will place it on the East side of the house, not through it. A grass/berm like amphitheater is apparently what is planned for the site of the existing structure. Staff noted the great the condition of the house. Thankfully the Board did not take the staff recommendation and go with the demolition, instead they gave a one month deferral to give time to look at the house more closely.
Personally I’d like to see the house get saved. If they have the funds to raze the structure (a good $20K) they could instead mothball the structure. This would entail boarding the windows from the interior with black plywood to give the appearance of dark windows. Patch the roof as needed to keep water out , some paint and other work along with exterior plantings and you’ve got a viable structure for when a good use & funds become available. Perhaps through a “Friends of Penrose Park” type organization money could be raised to help renovate the structure for use for a kids program such as the one done in Tower Grove Park. It could be used by bicyclists that use the velodrom also located in the park. We’ve got plenty of room for an amphitheater but we’ll never have the funds to rebuild such a great looking structure. Many parks, including Lafayette Square, cherish their old structures. We deserve no less for Penrose Park.
Following this last item they went into “executive session” which is generally only permitted in cases of personnel issues, such as the hiring or firing of someone. I speculate that Kathleen Shea, the Director of the Cultural Resources office, may be ready to retire.
– Steve
