Landmarks Board

LANDMARKS BOARD AGENDA FOR SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2022 LANDMARKS BOARD: Steve Martin, Chairperson Tom Kuypers, Vice Chair Matthew Barker, Secretary Michelle Beucke Jill Ryan Larry Muench Stephanie Troesser Jeffrey Lage Tom Besselman, Council Liaison Mesdames and Gentlemen: On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 6:00 p.m., the City of St. Charles Landmarks Board will hold a special meeting in the Council Chambers on the fourth floor of City Hall, 200 North Second Street, St. Charles. The agenda for this meeting is as follows: 1. Call to order and call the roll. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Structure Review (A) Case No. C/A 2022-019(D) 619 N. 2nd Street. The Academy of the Sacred Heart. The applicant is proposing to demolish the unsafe structure known as the Woodshop building on the Academy’s campus [Frenchtown Preservation District, Ward 1] 4. Announcements/Report of Officers 5. Adjournment The next regular meeting of the Landmarks Board is scheduled for Monday, November 14, 2022 The submittal deadline for the November 14th meeting is October 17, 2022 (November 1, 2022, for signs) Posted agenda  AGENDA ITEM #3A STAFF REPORT DEMOLITION 619 N. 2ND STREET CASE NO. C/A-2022-019(D) BY TAYLOR MOORE APPLICANT: The Freeman Contracting Co., Inc. James Freeman - President 8499 Lackland Rd. Suite 200 St. Louis, MO 63114 OWNER: Academy of the Sacred Heart 619 N. 2nd Street St. Charles, MO 63301 ADDRESS/LOCATION: 619 N. 2nd Street ZONING: CBD-Central Business District FPD-Frenchtown Preservation District USE: Woodshop, Academy of the Sacred Heart MEETING DATE: October 17, 2022 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND Located in the Frenchtown Preservation District, the subject structure is a brick accessory structure at the Academy of the Sacred Heart at 619 North Second Street, commonly referred to as the “woodshop”. The applicant is requesting demolition of the woodshop building because it is deemed unsafe to enter to sufficiently make repairs, and would require jeopardizing the lives of the persons asked to perform the repairs. The applicant is proposing demolition strategies that do not impose unreasonable safety risks to workers and which protect the adjacent structures from damage. This report will provide an analysis of the proposal along with documentation of compliance with demolition standards within a Historic District of the City. On June 20, 2022, the Landmarks Board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness application for the installation of a steel reinforcement covered by a limestone exterior after a partial failure of the foundation earlier in the year. On July 26, 2022, the area experienced historic rain fall that resulted in flooding in many areas. Due to the foundation being exposed to the elements from previous exploration/construction of the structure, and due to its location abutting the sidewalk, water breached the foundation causing further damage. Debris removal commenced on September 7,  2 2022. After analysis by the applicant’s structural engineer, significant additional areas of the inner and outer brick of the wall system were observed to have collapsed since the original failure. The applicant indicated that these bricks also had to be removed, drastically enlarging the failure opening atop the failed rubble limestone foundation sections. When the contractor removed the toppled bricks, stones and muck that had accumulated, it was revealed NO footing exists other than loosely placed stones. Further, the rubble stone foundation adjacent to the collapsed area is unstable, with the historical lime-based mortar nearly non-existent and evidence of washout present. Additionally, further sections of the rubble foundation too, had collapsed. An unsafe condition was determined to exist by the engineer-of-record (please see letter from the Engineer- of-Record attached to this application dated September 15, 2022) and those present entering the building has since been prohibited. The intention of the plan approved by Landmarks was to quickly reconstruct the foundation on a presumed existing footing before the brick wall became damaged. With the discovery of no footing existing, the threat of collapse is even higher than originally assumed. The City’s Building Commissioner has also reviewed the structure and agrees with the Engineer-of-Record’s recommendation/assessment. The unsound structure is also adjacent to a City right of way and any further collapse could potentially could cause further harm to the City sidewalk and infrastructure, as well as harm a member of the public. The City’s Zoning Ordinance requires that as part of an application for demolition, a report analyzing the historical and/or architectural significance of the property must be submitted to the Landmarks Board for review prior to demolition. The report must be written by a professional architect, architectural historian, historic preservation consultant, City planner, archaeologist or art historian. The ordinance requires that the property must be evaluated using the ten criteria provided in Section 400.1280(F), as outlined below. The applicant has provided the written report compliant with the above standard, which is provided with your packet for review. Provided below is the City review standards with staff’s analysis. Criterion 1: The property’s character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the community, county, state or country. 619 N. 2nd Street’s Woodshop building specifically has not been identified by any previous surveys as a historically significant structure; however, the Academy of the Sacred Heart was the first free school west of the Mississippi in 1818 which provide the site significant cultural value to the area. While the structure is located within the FPD on a cultural valuable property, the criteria that are used to determine what actually constitutes a structure to be a “contributing resource” within the boundaries of the FPD lack specifics to determine key architectural features of this district. From Decatur Street, the building in question is largely visible as it is built into the retaining wall that borders the property. The vernacular frame structure does not contain its original doors and windows, and it is unknown when these exterior changes were made, as they do not appear in the City’s files and may predate the Landmark Review Board. The Woodshop structure is a part of the Academy of the Sacred Heart’s Campus. However, neither the Academy nor the St. Charles Historical Society was able to pull  3 information or historic photographs of the Woodshop building. As a back building, it may not have peaked any interest to individuals documenting the property in the past, and has been overlooked in surveys and reports. Criterion 2: The property’s location as a site of a significant local, county, state or national event. Staff is unaware via our research on if the structure is the site of any significant event. Criterion 3: The property’s identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the community, county, state or country. The property is associated with St. Rose Philippine Duchesne, who is founder of the Academy of the Sacred Heart. The subject structure however was constructed after her passing, and is not significant to her contribution to the community. Criterion 4: The property’s embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, method of construction or use of indigenous material. In its present form, 619 N. 2nd Street’s Woodshop Building has been modified from its original state although it is unknown when those alterations took place. The foundation of the structure is primarily limestone and the elevation is made of brick. The windows and doorways are not original. The structure is built into the existing retaining wall, signifying they were more than likely constructed at the same time. Criterion 5: The property’s identification as the work of a master builder, designer, architect or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the community, county, state or country No specific documentation for if this structure was built by a master builder, designer, architect or landscape architect. Criterion 6: The property’s embodiment of elements of design, detailing, materials or craftsmanship which renders it architecturally significant. No, the specific structure does not embody elements of design, detailing, materials or craftsmanship which renders it architecturally significant. Criterion 7: The property’s embodiment of design elements that make it structurally or architecturally innovative. No, the structure does not embody design elements that make it structurally or architecturally innovative. Criterion 8: The property’s unique location or singular physical characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or city. The building is constructed into the existing retaining wall seen along the property adjacent to Decatur Street. The building itself is not understood to be an “established or familiar” landmark in a formal or informal sense. Criterion 9: The property’s character as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian structure, including, but not limited to, farmhouses; accessory buildings such as summer kitchens, smokehouses, or barns; schools; churches; public buildings; institutional  4 offices; or other commercial structures, with a high level of integrity or architectural significance. The building itself is a utilitarian structure that was utilized for the Academy of the Sacred Heart and commonly referred to as the Woodshop. This building was designed to be useful rather than attractive. The Woodshop Building has been modified from its original state at some point in its life and is no longer of original character. Criterion 10: The fact that it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history. No, the structure is not likely to yield information important in history. B. Certificate of Demolition or Removal. No person shall be permitted to remove or demolish any building in the Extended Historic Preservation District without the issuance of a certificate of demolition or removal by the Historic Landmarks Preservation and Architectural Review Board (HLPARB). The HLPARB shall base its decision upon the review criteria set forth in Section 400.1280; further, the HLPARB shall process all requests for certificates of demolition and removal in accordance with the procedures set forth in the aforesaid Sections of the Code. This provision shall not apply to accessory buildings which have less than five hundred (500) square feet nor to properties less than fifty (50) years old, unless the Director of Community Development determines that the building may have historical significance and refers the question to the HLPARB. SECTION 400.1280: CERTIFICATES OF DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL A. Except as otherwise provided in 400.1280(B), no permit for the demolition or removal of an historic landmark or any structure within an historic district shall be issued by the Department of Community Development until a certificate of demolition or removal has been issued by the HLPARB. Application forms for certificates of demolition or removal shall be prepared by the HLPARB. B. In the case of structures less than fifty (50) years old located within an historic district, applications for demolition or removal shall be issued a demolition permit without a certificate of appropriateness, unless the Director of Community Development determines that the property may have extraordinary significance and refers the question to the HLPARB. C. Notices. Where an application has been received for the demolition or removal of a structure, the Department of Community Development shall post a placard in a visible place upon the property at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting. Said placard shall describe the pending application for demolition of the building or structure, and the date, time and place of the meeting wherein the application shall be considered by the HLPARB. In addition, the Councilmember of the ward where the site of the proposed demolition is located shall receive a copy of the application and accompanying documents. Posting of the placard and notice to the Councilmember shall be mandatory and shall be a condition precedent to HLPARB review of the application. If the placard has not been posted, or if the Councilmember has not been notified, then the application shall be held over to the next meeting of the HLPARB. D. The HLPARB shall review the application and either issue or deny the certificate of demolition or removal within 30 days of the meeting when the HLPARB receives the  5 application. Written notice of the approval or denial of the application for a certificate of demolition or removal shall be provided the applicant within seven days following the determination, and shall be accompanied by a certificate of demolition or removal in the case of an approval. E. Historical/architectural report. As part of any application for demolition or removal, a report analyzing the historical and/or architectural significance of the property shall be submitted for review of the HLPARB. Submission of the report to the HLPARB shall be mandatory and shall be a condition precedent to HLPARB review of the application. The report shall address each of the ten criteria for historical architectural significance provided in Section 400.1280(F). The report shall be written by a professional architect, architectural historian, historic preservation consultant, city planner, archaeologist, or art historian. F. Standards for review. In considering an application for a certificate of demolition or removal, the HLPARB shall be guided by the following criteria as general standards in determining if the structure is historically significant, in addition to any design guidelines in the ordinance designating the landmark or historic district: 1. Its character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the community, county, state or country; 2. Its location as a site of a significant local, county, state or national event; 3. Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the community, county, state or country; 4. Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, method of construction or use of indigenous material; 5. Its identification as the work of a master builder, designer, architect or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the community, county, state or country; 6. Its embodiment of elements of design, detailing, materials or craftsmanship which renders it architecturally significant; 7. Its embodiment of design elements that make it structurally or architecturally innovative; 8. Its unique location or singular physical characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or city; 9. Its character as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian structure, including, but not limited to, farmhouses; accessory buildings such as summer kitchens, smokehouses, or barns; schools; churches; public buildings; institutional offices; or other commercial structures, with a high level of integrity or architectural significance; and/or 10. The fact that it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history. G. Should the HLPARB determine that the structure is historically significant, then the HLPARB shall proceed to consider whether the preservation of the structure is technologically and economically feasible. In determining whether the preservation of the structure is technologically and economically feasible the HLPARB shall consider the following criteria:  6 1. A report from a registered professional engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation; 2. Estimated market value of the property in its current condition; after completion of the proposed demolition or removal; after any changes recommended by the HLPARB; and, in the case of a proposed demolition, after renovation of the existing property for continued use prepared by a licensed real estate appraiser; 3. A detailed cost estimate, broken down by category, of the cost to rehabilitate or reuse the existing structure. Such estimate shall be provided by a registered professional architect or engineer, architectural conservator, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or licensed building contractor experienced in rehabilitation; 4. Assessed value of the property according to the two (2) most recent assessments; 5. Real estate taxes of the previous two (2) years; 6. Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for-profit or not-for-profit Corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, or other; 7. Any other information which may be reasonably obtained which is considered necessary by the HLPARB to make a determination as to whether the property-does yield, or may yield, a reasonable return to the owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Utilizing the standards for review for determining if a structure is historically significant, as provided in Section 400.1280(F) of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff has concluded that the building located at 619 N. Second Street does not match any of the ten criteria’s and should be considered not historically significant. Recommended Motion: Motion to find the building at 619 N. Second Street to be historically significant. (Staff recommends that this structure is NOT historically significant. If the Commission agrees, a vote of NO would be needed as the motion must be made in a positive form). If the Landmarks Board comes to the conclusion and votes that the Woodshop structure on the Academy of the Sacred Heart’s campus is in fact historically significant, the Board shall then proceed to consider whether the preservation of the structure is technologically and economically feasible. In determining whether the preservation of the structure is technologically and economically feasible, the HLPARB shall consider the following criteria (staff analysis is also provided in bold): 1. A report from a registered professional engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation. The report from the Engineer of Record is attached to this report. 2. Estimated market value of the property in its current condition; after completion of the proposed demolition or removal; after any changes recommended by the HLPARB; and  7 after renovation of the existing property. The market value estimates must be prepared by a licensed real estate appraiser. The market value from 2021 is 3,744,634 dollars. However, this is for the entire Academy of the Sacred Heart Campus. The actual market value of the specific structure is unknown. 3. A detailed cost estimate, broken down by category, of the cost to rehabilitate or reuse the existing structure. Such estimate shall be provided by a registered professional architect or engineer, architectural conservator, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser or licensed building contractor experienced in rehabilitation. A proposal to repair the damages before the more recent collapse was in the neighborhood of $38,000, which presumed intact brickwork and the existence of a footing under the foundation. A rehabilitation cost for the current state has not been estimated due to the fact not to impose unreasonable safety risks to workers entering a dangerous building. The Engineer of Record letter attached recommends the building be demolished as soon as possible. The City’s Building Commissioner has also reviewed the subject property and agrees with the Engineer of Record’s recommendation. 4. Assessed value of the property according to the two (2) most recent assessments. The assessed value of the property for the two most recent assessments is $0 due to the fact the property is a church/school (not-for-profit). 5. Real estate taxes of the previous two (2) years. No real estate taxes from the previous 2 years due to the fact the subject property is a church/school (not-for-profit). 6. Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for-profit or not-for-profit Corporation, limited partnership, joint venture or other. Benevolent not- for-profit. 7. Any other information which may be reasonably obtained which is considered necessary by the HLPARB to make a determination as to whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the owners. Not known. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Utilizing the above criteria to determining whether the preservation of the structure is technologically and economically feasible, Staff has concluded that the subject building is not feasible to rehabilitate. As stated earlier, a structural engineering report has been filed by the applicant indicating the dangerous condition of this structure. The City’s Building Commissioner concurs with this analysis and believes the structure should be demolished due to this dangerous condition (structure is unsound, vicinity to a public right-of-way, etc.). While staff recommends this item be reviewed by the Landmarks Board and approved to be demolished due to safety concerns as well as adverse impact onto City right-of-way, if the application is not permitted to be demolished by the Board and conditions further deteriorate due to unforeseen events, Section 400.1300 provides the Director of Community Development to authorize a structures removal if it  8 is deemed a Dangerous/Unsafe Building without obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Landmarks Board. Recommended Motions: Motion to find the preservation of the building at 619 N. Second Street to be technologically and economically feasible. (Staff recommends that the preservation of this structure is NOT technologically and economically feasible. If the Commission agrees, a vote of NO would be needed as the motion must be made in a positive form). FIGURE 1: FURTHER DAMAGE SEEN AT WOODSHOP BUILDING  9 FIGURE 2: CLOSE UP OF DAMAGE  10 FIGURE 3: BEFORE THE DAMAGE  City of Saint Charles, Missouri Interactive Map DS T HIR NT 700 DE CAT UR ST 10/19/2022, 3:07:15 PM 1:282 0 0 0 0.01 mi Building Footprints Roadways 0 0 0.01 0.01 km Superimposed Districts Extended Historic Preservation District Frenchtown Preservation District Parcels_0422 Department of Community Development City of Saint Charles Department of Community Development  Engineered Inspection & Consulting Services, LLC September 15, 2022 Academy of the Sacred Heart c/o Bob Schuckmann 619 N. Second Street St. Charles, MO 63301 Reference: Wood Shop Building on Decatur Street and North Third Street Dear Mr. Schuckmann: The purpose of this correspondence is to document recent damages of the Referenced building on the Sacred Heart campus and due its imperiled and unsafe condition, seek permission of the City Building Department for its immediate demolition. Background My understanding is that the 35’ by 25’ single-story brick building was constructed in 1895. A 2” water service line that serves the entire campus enters the basement through the foundation wall along Decatur Street. The pipe broke this past Spring, which resulted in a 10’ wide section of the stone foundation wall along Decatur Street collapsing. The brickwork comprising the first-floor wall remained in place above the opening in the foundation. This firm was engaged to design repair plans, which were signed and sealed by this author on 5/06/2022 for permit. The intention of that plan was to quickly reconstruct the foundation on a presumed existing footing before the brick wall became damaged. A City building permit for construction was issued, but there was a several week delay due to scheduled meetings of the Landmarks Board and perhaps other things. From the time the plans were completed to construction start last week, common storms and one historical rainstorm occurred. The rainfall and street runoff inundated the damaged portion of the building and with supersaturation of the soil subgrade, caused more of the foundation and a large portion of the brick wall above to collapse. 209 Brook Lane office: (636) 300-0747 O’Fallon, MO 63368 mobile: (314) 650-5200 Last week the contractor engaged to perform the repairs to the building began by shoring the unsupported ends of several floor joists, then removed the debris pile and set aside salvageable stone and brick. Structural Concerns The contractor removed the toppled bricks and stones and muck that had accumulated, which revealed NO footing exists other than loosely placed stones. Further, the rubble stone foundation adjacent to the collapsed area is unstable, with the historical lime-based mortar nearly non-existent and evidence of washout present. As loose stones are removed, more stones are becoming dislodged, thus growing the size of the collapse opening, which further jeopardizes the brick wall remaining along the sides of the collapse opening. The 3’ wide section of stone and brick remaining along Decatur Street between the collapse and the uphill corner of the building was intact in May when construction plans were contemplated. With the recent additional collapse, that stone has become unstable and some stairstep brick joints have opened above, including in the perpendicular wall, which is 3’ from and 3’ downhill of the adjacent three stall garage and shop building. The cracked joints within the brick is indicative it too is staged to collapse if adjacent masonry is vibrated, removed, or further water activity were to occur, in my opinion. However, to proceed with repairs to the building, it is necessary to remove more foundation stones that are detached but now remain precariously positioned within the wall as well as a wider portion of the brick that has shifted. I must presume that the perpendicular foundation wall to the one that has collapsed was similarly constructed with no footing. If the contractor were to continue removing dislodged stones comprising the foundation, the perpendicular wall will be put at risk of collapsing. If this wall were to collapse, its failure would then compromise the soil that supports the garage building. Wall braces and floor joist and roof rafter shoring is required to support the Wood Shop in the vicinity of the collapse to provide safe working conditions for the contractor’s personnel. However, vibration from installation and shifting loads slightly by installation of shoring and bracing may well cause further collapse adjacent to or above the workers, which would pose a life safety concern for those performing the bracing work. That is, there is no practical method to shore the structure in a manner to protect the safety of the workers. Considering the substantial structural damage that is present, the potential for harm to the immediately adjacent building, and unsafe conditions posed to shore the building to make Engineered Inspection & Consulting Services, LLC 2 of 3 209 Brook Lane office: (636) 300-0747 O’Fallon, MO 63368 mobile: (314) 650-5200 it ready for proper restoration, my recommendation is to raze the building as soon as possible. Please contact me should you have any questions or comments regarding this report. Respectfully submitted, 09/15/22 Engineered Inspection & Consulting Services, LLC 3 of 3 209 Brook Lane office: (636) 300-0747 O’Fallon, MO 63368 mobile: (314) 650-5200