Gracie’s Annex project draws stop‑work order and split commission over remodel vs. new construction

A downtown St. Helens renovation at the former Gracie’s Annex drew a stop‑work order and an extended commission discussion after the construction team removed portions of the structure outside the approved phasing sequence.

Contractors said a subcontractor scheduling lapse and life‑safety concerns forced them to remove an east wall ahead of the approved phase, and they presented a timeline, photo documentation and a stamped phasing plan showing the intended sequence. Owner and contractor representatives said their intent had been a phased remodel designed to preserve building status that confers a parking exemption in the Riverfront District when more than 50% of a lot is occupied by an existing building.

City staff and the building official disagreed that the project still met the code’s definition of a remodel. Staff described the code’s allowance for phased work in the Riverfront District but said the current condition — with only portions of walls remaining — risked losing the exemption because the structure no longer met the definition of an existing building. The building official issued a stop‑work order while staff and the commission reviewed the status.

Commissioners and attendees disagreed about intent and consequence. Preservation‑oriented commissioners said the extent of demolition looked like new construction and worried about “demolition by neglect”; contractors and the architect said they followed an approved plan, encountered unforeseen safety issues and had inspection interactions with city staff during the work. After lengthy testimony from the contractor, the owner and the architect, commissioners split on direction: some favored allowing work to proceed to preserve a historically sympathetic facade and avoid an empty lot with two walls, while others said the project effectively constituted new construction and must comply with site development and parking requirements for new buildings.

No formal appealable decision was made at the meeting. Staff said the split left them without definitive commission direction and that they would follow up with legal, building and planning colleagues to determine whether the site can retain the Riverfront District parking exemption, what permit revisions are required, and whether the building can proceed under the existing permit package or must reapply as new construction. Project representatives said stopping the project or requiring a full new‑construction review could create substantial financial hardship and the risk the site would sit partially demolished for months.