H.

DATE:
ADDRESSES:
ITEM:
JURISDICTION:
STAFF:

November 24, 2014

1021 S GRAND

OWNER AND APPLICANT:

51

RELEVANT LEGISLATION:
St. Louis City Ordinance #64689
PART X - DEMOLITION REVIEWS
SECTION FIFTY-EIGHT.
Whenever an application is made for a permit to demolish a Structure which is i) individually listed on
the National Register, ii) within a National Register District, iii) for which National Register Designation
is pending or iv) which is within a Preservation Review District established pursuant to Sections FiftyFive to Fifty-Six of this ordinance, the building commissioner shall submit a copy of such application to
the Cultural Resources Office within three days after said application is received by his Office.
St. Louis City Ordinance #64832
SECTION ONE. Preservation Review Districts are hereby established for the areas of the City of St.
Louis described in Exhibit A.
SECTION FIVE. Demolition permit - Board decision.
All demolition permit application reviews pursuant to this chapter shall be made by the Director of the
Office who shall either approve or disapprove of all such applications based upon the criteria of this
ordinance. All appeals from the decision of the Director shall be made to the Preservation Board.
Decisions of the Board or Office shall be in writing, shall be mailed to the applicant immediately upon
completion and shall indicate the application by the Board or Office of the following criteria, which are
listed in order of importance, as the basis for the decision:
A. Redevelopment Plans. Demolitions which would comply with a redevelopment plan previously
approved by ordinance or adopted by the Planning and Urban Design Commission shall be
approved except in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted.
Not applicable.
B. Architectural Quality. Structure's architectural merit, uniqueness, and/or historic value shall be
evaluated and the structure classified as high merit, merit, qualifying, or noncontributing based
upon: Overall style, era, building type, materials, ornamentation, craftsmanship, site planning, and
whether it is the work of a significant architect, engineer, or craftsman; and contribution to the
streetscape and neighborhood. Demolition of sound high merit structures shall not be approved
by the Office. Demolition of merit or qualifying structures shall not be approved except in unusual
circumstances which shall be expressly noted.
The Missouri Belting Company Building at 1021 S. Grand is determined to be a qualifying
building as no formal evaluation of its eligibility for listing in the National Register has been
undertaken. Otto Wilhelmi designed the industrial building for the Missouri Belting Co., a
manufacturer of industrial belting. Sanborn maps indicate that the company office and
storeroom were located in the two-story portion below the belting shop on the second
floor. The rear portion, with two lighting monitors in the roof, was the Currier Room
where hides were tanned and dressed. Two-story pilasters rise through the Grand Avenue
52

faade and divide it into formal bays; limestone capitals and a corbelled cornice terminate
the faade. A classically-inspired entrance surround consists of brick pilasters supporting a
limestone entablature. The one-story wing to the west has a pattern of pilasters and wide
window openings on the south side similar to that of the faade.
The Missouri Belting building cant be considered with certainty to have architectural or
historic significance. Every industrial company filled a niche in the market but does not
necessarily have local historic significance in that economic sector. An argument for
architectural significance sufficient for it to be listed on the National Register of Historic
Places would need to be made within the context of industrial architecture. The building
reflects the more formal architectural presence that industrial facilities had when located on
a major thoroughfare such as S. Grand Boulevard. Architect Otto Wilhelmi used a restrained
aesthetic favored by engineers for industrial buildings and then added a more formal
entrance with classically-inspired elements. The building is handsome and suited to its
purpose, and like many industrial buildings, one-of-a-kind but likely without significant
uniqueness.
C. Condition. The Office shall make exterior inspections to determine whether a structure is sound. If
a structure or portion thereof proposed to be demolished is obviously not sound, the application
for demolition shall be approved except in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted.
The remaining or salvageable portion(s) of the structure shall be evaluated to determine the
extent of reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration required to obtain a viable structure.
1. Sound structures with apparent potential for adaptive reuse, reuse and or resale shall
generally not be approved for demolition unless application of criteria in subsections A, D, F
and G, four, six and seven indicates demolition is appropriate.
In terms of the ordinance, the building is sound.
2. Structurally attached or groups of buildings. The impact of the proposed demolition on any
remaining portion(s) of the building will be evaluated. Viability of walls which would be
exposed by demolition and the possibility of diminished value resulting from the partial
demolition of a building, or of one or more buildings in a group of buildings, will be considered.
Not applicable.
D. Neighborhood Effect and Reuse Potential.
1. Neighborhood Potential: Vacant and vandalized buildings on the block face, the present
condition of surrounding buildings, and the current level of repair and maintenance of
neighboring buildings shall be considered.
2. Reuse Potential: The potential of the structure for renovation and reuse, based on similar
cases within the City, and the cost and extent of possible renovation shall be evaluated.
Structures located within currently well maintained blocks or blocks undergoing upgrading
renovation will generally not be approved for demolition.
The neighborhood and reuse potential of this property are unusually affected by the
nature of the neighborhood and the ownership of surrounding property.
53

The future redevelopment of the west side of S. Grand Boulevard south of Chouteau is
uncertain. The Planning Commission, upon appeal of the Preservation Boards decision,
approved demolition of the remaining Peveley building on February 2012, but instructed
the Cultural Resources Office to refrain from approving the demolition permit until a
building permit for the proposed Ambulatory Care facility was applied for. The
demolition of the Pevely Dairy building for the construction of the Ambulatory Care
facility seems to be less certain, yet it is likely that St. Louis University will construct new
facilities on S. Grand Boulevard between the hospital and Chouteau.
The 1021 S. Grand parcel is surrounded by the extensive land holdings of St. Louis
University. The reuse potential of the Missouri Belting Company building is affected by
difficulties with access and parking. Motard Street, west of Grand, is truncated and
serves only the southern portion of the Pevely Dairy property which historically
surrounded the Missouri Belting Co. building. This building was erected at the edge of
LaSalle Street, which has been vacated. As there is no vehicular access to the rear of the
building, no parking on Grand Boulevard in the vicinity of the property, and minimal onsite parking, reuse potential is limited for any owner other than St. Louis University.
3. Economic Hardship: The Office shall consider the economic hardship which may be
experienced by the present owner if the application is denied. Such consideration may include,
among other things, the estimated cost of demolition, the estimated cost of rehabilitation or
reuse, the feasibility of public or private financing, the effect of tax abatement, if applicable,
and the potential for economic growth and development in the area.
The applicant asserts that the south side of the building, adjacent to the Pevely Ice
Cream factory, was damaged at the time of the fire in March 2009. The loss of mortar
and limited failure of brick noted in the Building Division condemnation of the property
is on the south side of the building. There are indications of deferred maintenance. The
owner has not submitted estimates for stabilization or rehabilitation of the building, or
records of attempts to sell or lease the property.
E. Urban Design. The Office shall evaluate the following urban design factors:
1. The effect of a proposed partial demolition on attached or row buildings.
2. The integrity of the existing block face and whether the proposed demolition will significantly
impact the continuity and rhythm of structures within the block.
3. Proposed demolition of buildings with unique or significant character important to a district,
street, block or intersection will be evaluated for impact on the present integrity, rhythm,
balance and density on the site, block, intersection or district.
The industrial nature of the block on the west side of South Grand between Hickory
Street and Chouteau has been reduced significantly in an incremental manner during the
last few years. The fire that destroyed the ice cream factory of the Pevely Dairy
operation occurred in 2009. At the time, the Pevely Dairy complex was vacant. More
recently a rehabilitation project was considered and the Dairy was listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. The project did not go forward, and the property was sold. St.
Louis University, the current owners of the most of the frontage on South Grand and
54

most of the rest of the block, demolished portions of the Pevely Complex in preparation
for a new construction project that has not gone forward.
The corner Pevely Dairy building and the Missouri Belting Company building provide
context for each other and suggest the extent of the historic industrial development that
was evident on this block. The loss of the Missouri Belting on a block face that has
diminished continuity and rhythm can be considered to be either not important due the
changes that have already occurred, or as a remnant to be retained.
4. The elimination of uses will be considered; however, the fact that a present and original or
historic use of a site does not conform to present zoning or land use requirements in no way
shall require that such a nonconforming use to be eliminated.
Not applicable.
F. Proposed Subsequent Construction. Notwithstanding the provisions of any ordinance to the
contrary, the Office shall evaluate proposed subsequent construction on the site of proposed
demolition based upon whether:
1. The applicant has demonstrated site control by ownership or an option contract;
Not applicable.
G. Commonly Controlled Property. If a demolition application concerns property adjoining occupied
property and if common control of both properties is documented, favorable consideration will
generally be given to appropriate reuse proposals. Appropriate uses shall include those allowed
under the current zoning classification, reuse for expansion of an existing conforming, commercial
or industrial use or a use consistent with a presently conforming, adjoining use group. Potential
for substantial expansion of an existing adjacent commercial use will be given due consideration.
Not applicable.
H. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures (garages, sheds, etc.) and ancillary structures will be
processed for immediate resolution. Proposed demolition of frame garages or accessory
structures internal to commercial or industrial sites will, in most cases, be approved unless that
structure demonstrates high significance under the other criteria listed herein, which shall be
expressly noted.
Not applicable.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION:
The Cultural Resource Offices consideration of the criteria for demolition led to these preliminary
findings:
The Missouri Belting Co. building, designed by Otto Wilhelmi, is considered to be a qualifying
building in terms of the Ordinance, one that might be eligible for listing in the National
Register Historic District.
The building, though showing damage that should be repaired at the west end of the south
wall, is determined to be in Sound condition.

55

Motard Street, west of Grand, was truncated and serves only the southern portion of the
Pevely Dairy complex, which historically surrounded the Missouri Belting Co. building; the
Pevely firm had traditionally afforded the owners of 1021 S. Grand access to the rear of the
property across its property.
The building covers a very high percentage of the parcel and has little access, as it stands
adjacent to the vacated Motard and LaSalle Streets, the Grand Boulevard sidewalk, and the
property line on the north.
Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office that includes a formal Determination
of Eligibility of the Missouri Belting Co. Building would help determine if state and/or federal
historic tax credits could be used to help finance a building rehabilitation.
The applicant has not submitted records regarding attempts to sell or lease the building, or
concerning stabilization and rehabilitation of the property.
Ordinance #64639 states that the demolition of merit or qualifying structures shall not be
approved except in unusual circumstances which shall be expressly noted. This property has
unusual circumstances of neighborhood effect due to its location in the midst of an
institutions landholdings and without usual street or alley access and very limited off-street
parking, factors that affect its reuse potential. With the future of St. Louis Universitys
surrounding land redevelopment unknown at this time, the likelihood of an investor other
than the University acquiring this property could be limited.
There are two ways to consider the effect of the loss of the Missouri Belting building, one of
two remaining buildings on what was once an industrial blockface on urban design: an
acceptable loss based on the transformation of the area, or a resource that should be kept as a
reminder of earlier development.
The criteria for proposed subsequent construction, commonly controlled property and
accessory structures are not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Cultural Resources Office recommends that the Preservation Board uphold the Directors denial
unless it determines that the consideration of neighborhood effect and reuse potential warrants
approval.

56

ENTRANCE ON GRAND

WEST AND SOUTH WALLS

SOUTH WALL, WEST END DAMAGE

NORTH WALL

57