urbanSTL

imran wrote: ↑

May 21, 2021

There is an alley on the other side of Clara but not behind this lot
I’m guessing the alley used to exist but was allowed to be cannibalized by nearby private property. Fast forward 40 years and now everyone needs to have a garage entrance and curb cuts off the Main Streets.

Well, there are curb cuts anyway...

That'll learn people to drive the evil cars! They might want to put some bollards along that west wall tho...

urbanitas wrote: ↑

May 21, 2021

framer wrote: ↑

May 21, 2021

I really like the design of this, or at least what the design is trying to do. I'd like to see a better rendering, and learn more about materials etc. It may be good, or it may look like cheap crap. 

The vertical lines on the rendering imply metal panels, which, as you said...

The street-facing facades are brick veneer with engineered stone accents. On the east and south sides the brick wraps around for a bit (20' on the east side) then transitions to composite/fiber board. 

The new design looks good and I'm glad to see they're going with a classic look. Are NIMBYs going nuts again yet?

This wasn't heard at the Preservation Board meeting.

quincunx wrote:On the Preservation Board preliminary agenda.

Any pictures? The rendering got tweaked right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SeattleNative wrote: ↑

Jun 17, 2021

quincunx wrote:On the Preservation Board preliminary agenda.

Any pictures? The rendering got tweaked right?

No images yet since this is a preliminary agenda.

On the final Preservation Board agenda. Looks the same as posted May 20 upthread.

Why? 

Too tall. Not set back enough.

I thought they re-did the set-back to match the existing buildings. 

It didn't look any different to me.
Here's the discussion as the Pres Board meeting-

quincunx wrote:It didn't look any different to me.
Here's the discussion as the Pres Board meeting-

Oh come on... it’s not even the tallest building on its street (Clara) and the neighborhood is filled with corner lot buildings that break the defined setback. What are we even doing here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Preservation Review Board shouldn't be dictating form or design of new structures. They're basically acting as the taste police, and their decisions are often arbitrary (e.g. the height in this case). Some of the micromanaging like "your door can't be a certain color" and "your retaining wall used the wrong color stone" is completely absurd. Can somebody also explain why we need both the PRB and the Cultural Resources Office? Couldn't the PRB be subsumed into the CRO?

The CWE historic code says a new building can't be 15% than the low-rise average. I think there's a similar thing for set back. So it sounds like the ordinance is the sticky wicket here.
Then there's the zooning code which this project was supposed to go in front of the Board of Adjustment (akin to the Preservation Board) for variances. This building is below the parking mandate, violates setback in the zoning code too, and has one more unit than the max. Again perhaps it's the zoning code that needs a change.

^ ah, i didn't realize it was in violation of zoning and historic ordinance and parking mandate and this and that and the other thing. so development friendly. zoning and form-based code need a city-wide overhaul and the parking mandate needs to go.

addendum: i'm not trying to demonize the PRB. their role in preservation is of course really important. i suppose my beef is with some of the silly, seemingly arbitrary minutiae in the historic district standards.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Jul 02, 2021

The Preservation Review Board shouldn't be dictating form or design of new structures. They're basically acting as the taste police, and their decisions are often arbitrary (e.g. the height in this case). Some of the micromanaging like "your door can't be a certain color" and "your retaining wall used the wrong color stone" is completely absurd. Can somebody also explain why we need both the PRB and the Cultural Resources Office? Couldn't the PRB be subsumed into the CRO?

Let me see if I've got this straight: The CRO advises clients, issues recommendations, and at least preliminary approvals and denials. They seem to be essentially an executive sort of agency. The PRB, by contrast, seems to be more judicial in its function. They seem to have the power to review any decision the CRO makes and either uphold it or overturn it. Additionally they seem able to give opinions with recommendations to both applicants and the CRO staff. They seem to be essentially the first level of historic building code court. (It's a tad informal, but it feels like a court with two parties stating facts and arguing positions and the PRB merely issuing judgments.) It's a darned odd system, but . . . having watched much of that video it seems to work. The board members seem careful and considerate and generally well informed. And they seem quite independent from CRO. I'd say it's a good idea to have a court of appeal, if you will, so that the bureaucracy isn't the final word.

I will absolutely agree that the building code clearly needs work. There were clearly places where community design standards were in fairly dramatic tension with city zoning and building codes. (I can fully understand the frustration of the fellow trying to build in Soulard. To paraphrase: "The building codes says two units with two off street parking spaces. The community guidelines says this height and this setback. I used the same model example and a similar design to this building you approved over here, but you said I needed a different model example . The CRO recommended a new one, so at great expense to myself I had the architect draw up a new design based on that. Now you tell me the key feature is too new. I did all of that and you're still telling me to go back and redesign? You're telling me I have to get a variance from one code in order to be in compliance with the other?") It's a dang mess, but I don't blame the PRB here. Maybe an ordinance that does away with parking minimums and another that makes it clear whether city zoning or neighborhood guidelines take precedence would be useful

^ but the PRB only has authority over designated historic districts, whereas the CRO oversees the entire city i think. and don't different historic districts have different standards? what set of standards guides the CRO? at some point it just becomes an obstructionist bureaucratic monstrosity along the lines of the region's fragmentation.

^The patchwork of regulations is certainly a mess. But you can't blame CRO or PRB for that. They didn't write them. In fact, I'm getting the idea CRO helps people navigate that mess. (At least I think they're supposed to.) And if you don't like CRO's decision you can appeal it. I certainly agree that the historic districts can, at times, be obstructionist. But I'm not sure it's fair to nail either CRO or PRB to that particular cross.

Note that it's called the Preservation Board, not the PRB.

^ thanks. so who defines the historic district codes? do both the CRO and the PB enforce them, or does CRO only oversee preservation review districts?

i think i recall that being on the National Register does not guarantee preservation review. correct?

it all just needs to be streamlined, and the entire city should be subject to preservation review. at the same time, though, historic district standards for new construction and aesthetics need to be loosened.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Jul 03, 2021

Note that it's called the Preservation Board, not the PRB.

Apologies, I had it in my mind that it was the Preservation Review Board, seeing as their function seems to be to review decisions the CRO made. I'm still trying to figure this out, but it does seem reasonable to have the PB separate from the CRO. They do at least seem to do different things.