Webster Groves HPC tables demolition request for contributing outbuilding at 115 Orchard Avenue

The Webster Groves Historic Preservation Commission on Thursday voted to table a demolition request for a two‑story outbuilding at 115 Orchard Avenue after members said they need legal clarification on what conditions, if any, they can require for demolitions in historic districts.

The decision keeps the public hearing open while staff reviews the municipal code and consults the city attorney on the commission's authority to approve, deny or "approve in amended form" demolition requests and to attach conditions to approvals.

Commissioners and staff said the carriage house-like structure is listed as a contributing resource in the National Register nomination materials for the district, but the historical record is unclear about when it was built. One staff reviewer said the property was assessed as an empty lot in earlier records and that no building permit for the outbuilding was found in searches through the 1930s. That ambiguity prompted questions about the structure's significance and whether mitigation or conditions are appropriate if demolition is allowed.

Aaron Singh, the architect representing the applicants, described the structure as "an old structure" that has been "neglected for many, many years" and told the commission the owners intend to demolish the outbuilding and build "a larger garage'car garage only" roughly in the same rear‑lot location. Singh said the existing building appears to have been altered over time, including vinyl siding and knob‑and‑tube wiring, and that the new garage would be designed to "match the house" and the neighborhood character.

Neighbor Susan Wood, who said she owns 237 Rosemont adjacent to the property, told the commission she is directly affected by the proposal and asked that any replacement structure retain an entrance on the north end so her view would not front onto parked cars. Wood said she lives about "15 feet away from that carriage house" and listed privacy, loss of green space and potential runoff as reasons she opposes demolition without protections or careful siting.

Commission members asked whether the commission can approve demolition with conditions (for example, requiring certain window proportions or siding materials) and whether an "amended approval" would require the applicant to submit revised plans. Because the code language and past practice were not clear to members, the commission voted to table the matter and directed staff to research the commission's legal options and consult the city attorney. The public hearing will remain open and the item will return to a future meeting.

The commission and staff noted that any replacement building'if permitted and later proposed'would still be subject to review by the Architectural Review Board as part of the building permit and design approval process.

The tabling motion passed following a second; commissioners voted in favor and the hearing was left open for the next meeting, with staff to provide a legal memorandum on what conditions the commission may lawfully attach to a demolition approval.

Next steps: staff will (1) review the municipal code language governing HPC approvals (approve, deny, approve in amended form) and (2) consult the city attorney about the scope and enforceability of potential conditions. The commission will revisit the item at a subsequent public hearing once staff provides guidance.