Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shaw District: Board Defers Window Replacements, Denies Nonconforming Rear Doors
Summary
The board deferred decisions on proposed replacement windows for two Shaw District parcels to allow staff time to review newly submitted aluminum alternatives, and separately denied recently installed steel rear doors that staff found to be street-visible and nonconforming.
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its Oct. 27 meeting the St. Louis Preservation Board deferred consideration of proposed replacement windows for two parcels in the Shaw District to allow staff time to review alternative (aluminum) products recently submitted by the applicant, and separately voted to deny nonconforming steel rear doors installed at one property.
Staff explained that new information about alternative window products arrived late and had not been reviewed; staff recommended deferral so staff and the neighborhood could evaluate whether the alternative would meet Shaw District standards. The applicant, Weston Harding, described site-security issues, significant deterioration of existing windows and a tight budget; he told the board he had been exploring an aluminum product that might meet standards.
The board voted to defer windows on both items D and E to the next meeting so staff could fully assess the aluminum option and the visibility of the rear elevations. On the doors the board heard that new metal six-panel steel doors and non-historic hardware had been installed at a street-visible elevation; after discussion a motion to deny the rear doors for noncompliance with the Shaw standards carried by roll call.
The board instructed staff to work with the applicant on submittal of the alternative window product and to bring the items back after staff review. The applicant was told that if staff determines the aluminum product meets standards, staff may approve it without the board; if not, the applicant must return with a revised, code-compliant proposal.

