SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Peter Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Lee White, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, and Lee White. Amy Rowland and Wayne Gordon were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Comrr1ission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
NEW MEMBER
Mr. Simonsen introduced Ms. Lee White as a new member of the Historic Landmark
Commission. She was welcomed by the other members and staff.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Ashdown moved to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2002 meeting, as amended. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen and Ms. White abstained. Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Simonsen introduced Mr. David Oka, Executive Director of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency, and asked him to come forward and address the Commission. Mr. Oka stated that he was born and raised in Ogden, Utah. He said that he had been working in redevelopment in Las Vegas, prior to his coming to Salt Lake City. He has been with the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) for about a year. Mr. Oka commented that the historic preservation laws are quite different in Las Vegas. Mr. Oka wanted to meet the members of the Historic Landmark Commission and present some the RDA's goals so "we can
work together to help build a better community".
The following is an outline of Mr. Oka's comments:
One of the directives of the Redevelopment Agency has is to help to conform and promote the master plan of the city where possible.
The RDA works in areas that are aged and tired and are in need of assistance. The RDA is given the tools to revamp or redevelop some of these areas through the Utah State Legislature.
Some funding from property taxes is being used to help accomplish the goals in conjunction with the master plan, such as what kind of services would be provided to the community and neighborhood and if those would be harmony with the directives of the Redevelopment Agency Board, which is the City Council.
The RDA's goals may differ for each prospective property. The RDA may promote job creation where jobs are very critical. The RDA may promote a light industrial use. The RDA's energies and resources may be directed at more commercial use, retail and office, such as on Main Street. The RDA may look at commercial use in the line of goods and services, as in commercial nodes, to support the surrounding neighborhood. Often constituents use "Ninth and Ninth" as an example of a good retail development. Mr. Oka commented that a development such as "Ninth and Ninth" would not fit Main Street and 200 South because it would not be compatible.
At times, the RDA engages architects, design people, and contractors who should work in harmony with historic preservation to make certain that designs conform to the neighborhood setting.
The RDA tries to designate money every year that goes into the infrastructure of a city, such as sewers, street improvements, curb and gutters, lighting, and safety issues that help improve the integrity of the neighborhoods.
The RDA is sometimes perceived as an agency that "mows" everything down to the determent of the community. Among the successful historic restoration projects where the RDA has assisted are the David Keith Building, the Devereaux House, Union Pacific Depot, the Walker Building, the Tire Town Building, the Plandome Hotel, Judge Building, the Boston Store, the Commercial Club, and the Henderson Building. These types of projects are very important to the integrity of the community.
In conclusion, Mr. Oka stated, "We think there is a lot we can offer ... in the form of historic preservation ... whenever possible and whenever it meshes with our goals and objectives to go forward and try and build communities and make Salt Lake City a better place to live." He offered to answer any questions.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by asking about RDA's vision for downtown. Mr. Oka said that Main Street is a mixed-use financial and legal district with high and mid-rise buildings having contemporary retail spaces. He added that the uses at Ninth and Ninth would be a good match for some of the spaces but may not be the highest and best use for high-rise buildings. Mr. Ashdown said that he believed no potentially positive uses should be prevented from going downtown. Mr. Oka mentioned the negotiations with
TV Channel 2 going into the Wells Fargo Center. Mr. Oka also said that RDA is going ahead with a grant program to help some of the small businesses downtown. He said that RDA has looked at seismic upgrade studies and fa9ade renovation programs. Mr. Oka said, "Maybe we have to get a little more innovative."
Mr. Simonsen talked about his working on the steering committee that helped generate some ideas for the redevelopment project in the Capitol Hill area. He said that he appreciated the sensitivity that the Redevelopment Agency had, and those who worked in that group, for the preservation of a couple of buildings with which the Historic Landmark Commission has been intrigued. Mr. Simonsen mentioned the old store on the corner of Arctic Court and 500 North, and the nine-plex on the adjacent property. He said that the Commission hopes there may be a buyer that would take those and do something wonderful with them. Mr. Simonsen wished Mr. Oka and the RDA success in their endeavors with the site.
In closing, Mr. Oka thanked the Commission and its time and asked the members to call him anytime if they had any questions. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission hopes to have a positive experience working with him in the future.
As there were no additional public general comments to the Commission, Mr. Simonsen continued with the Public Hearings portion of the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 001-03. at 160 No. City Creek Canyon Road. by Robert Sperling of Salt Lake City Public Utilities, requesting to construct a new building for chlorination and fluoridation located in the Avenues Historic District.
This case was postponed because the address on the agenda was not correct.
Case No. 002-03. at 277 No. "C" Street. by Lynn Morgan. requesting approval for renovation of the existing house and garage. and an addition to the existing house located in the Avenues Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that the property is located in the Avenues Historic District and is zoned SR-1.
Mr. Knight said that according to the site form prepared for the property in 1979, this house was constructed c.1893 for Thomas A. Horne, a motorman and laborer for the Salt Lake City Railroad. He said at one point it was a single-story hall-parlor house and the front entrance of the house faced south and can be seen in the photograph's evidence with the center door then the two front flanking windows. Mr. Knight stated that Thomas Horne's estate sold the house in 1906, and the property passed through a long succession of short-time owners. He said that during much of this time the house was a rental, although several owners also lived in the house. Mr. Knight pointed out that later on, the house was re-oriented toward "C" Street, with a new projecting bay, shingled gable, and entrance doors added to the east side. This possibly was done c. 1923, when tax records indicate $600.00 of work on the property.
Mr. Knight continued by saying that between 1957 and 1965, the house was extensively remodeled, such as artificial brick siding was added to the entire house, and the front and back gables were clad with vertical wood siding. The porch columns were replaced with metal "licorice stick" posts, and aluminum sliding windows were added to the front. Mr. Knight indicated that despite these alterations, the house was classified as a contributing structure by the 1979 Avenues historic survey. The house was recently purchased by Lynn and Ruth Morgan, who live next door to the south.
Mr. Knight addressed the applicants' proposal in the following manner: The applicants propose to remove the incompatible alterations on the house, such as the metal porch posts, artificial brick siding, vertical siding in the gables, and metal windows. The front of the house would be restored to much the same appearance as that shown on a c.1936 tax photograph. The false brick siding would be removed and the existing adobe walls would be re-stuccoed.
The porch columns and front windows would be returned to their original appearance with new wood windows and columns. The sliding metal front door would be replaced with a more compatible set of French doors, and the wood shingles in the gable would be restored. The windows on the south side of the house would also be replaced with new wood windows and the house's original front doors would be restored. The Morgan’s propose to install three new wood windows in the east gable in order to allow more light into the new attic living space and to meet egress requirements.
A small lean-to addition would be demolished and new addition would be added to the rear of the existing house. The addition would be 1-1/2 stories, with dormers on the east and west sides of the addition's upper story. Dormers would also be added to the south slope of the existing roof, with flat glass skylights proposed for the north slope.
Proposed landscaping work includes a new four-foot wrought iron-type metal fence in the front yard, a new concrete driveway, and a six-foot stuccoed masonry wall in the rear yard. The existing garage would also be stuccoed and re-shingled to improve the appearance of the building and tie it architecturally to the house.
Mr. Knight stated that the Architectural Subcommittee reviewed this proposal on January 8, 2003. The comments made at the subcommittee meeting were generally in favor of the project. Mr. Knight pointed out that the addition is large enough that it meets the standards of a full Commission review.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City.
Mr. Knight stated that staff determined that the following standards are pertinent to this application:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Staff's discussion: The architectural and historic character of this house is more complex than it initially appears. The house has been modified substantially several times and has changed dramatically as architectural fashion has changed. These changes are readily apparent on the exterior of the house upon close examination. For example, the south door of the house once served as its front entry. These details would remain and/or be restored where elements have been replaced with inappropriate substitutes.
The applicants propose to remove a small lean-to addition on the rear of the house and construct a new, larger addition on the back of the building. This approach has been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission many times in the past, and staff believes that such additions can be successful if the original form of the primary portion of the house is retained and the details on the addition are compatible with the historic character of the house. Likewise, the proposed front dormers echo the symmetry and details of the existing building.
Mr. Knight pointed out that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City also recommend such an approach:
8.1 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
Staff's finding of fact: The character-defining elements of the property will be preserved and reinforced by the proposed project. The applicant meets this standard.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects.
Staff's discussion: The applicants propose to retain as much of the existing historic material of the house as possible. Much of the historic fabric of the house was removed in its 1950s remodeling. These missing features will be replaced with new elements based upon documents and physical evidence, such as the tax photo attached to the staff report.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Staff's discussion: Although unlikely, the proposed work would be reversible, and the building could be returned to its historic size and appearance without destroying the essential form and integrity of the building. As previously noted, the proposed project would reinforce the integrity of the building by removing incompatible alterations to the house.
12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City
Council.
Staff's discussion: The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City includes an extensive discussion on additions to historic structures. Specific guidelines that are applicable in this case are noted in the discussion of each standard. It is staff's opinion that the proposed project is in keeping with all of the standards in the design guidelines.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed work meets the applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Knight reported that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City offer the following guidance on the siting, massing, size, and scale of an addition: [Please note that the full text was included in the staff report.]
8.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
8.3 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.
8.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
8.5 Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building.
8.6 Do not construct a new addition or alteration that will hinder one's ability to interpret the historic character of the building or structure.
8.7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street.
8.8 Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition.
8.9 Minimize negative technical effects to original features when designing an addition.
8.10 Use windows in the addition that are similar in character to those of the historic building or structure.
Ground Level Additions:
8.14 Keep a new addition physically and visually subordinate to the historic building.
8.15 Roof forms shall be similar to those of the historic building.
8.16 On primary facades of an addition, use a solid-to-void ratio that is similar to that of the historic building.
Staff's discussion: Although the proposed addition is large in relation to the existing building, the mass of the addition is located behind and is subordinate to the original portion of the house. The gable of the addition is lower than the gable on the historic portion of the house. The wall material and details of the addition distinguish it from the historic portion of the building.
The proposed materials on the addition differentiate the new work from the historic portion of the building. Wood shingles were used on the gables of this building and were commonly used historically on additions.
The proposed windows and doors are compatible in size, material, configuration and function with the doors and windows on the historic building. The proposed dormers and skylights are located on the side of the structure and are unobtrusive. The design guidelines recommend the following with respect to dormers and skylights:
7.4 Minimize the visual impact of skylights and other rooftop devices.
8.13 The roof form and slope of the addition must be in character with the historic building.
Staffs discussion: The proposed work on the garage includes re-roofing the structure, stuccoing the lower section of the front (east) face of the building, and added wood shingles and trim to the front gable. Staff was not able to establish a construction date for the building, but does not believe that the proposed work would impact any important architectural feature on the building. Likewise, staff believes that the fencing and site work that is proposed would reinforce the historic character of the property and meets the Historic Landmark Commission's standards.
Staffs finding of fact: The design of the addition takes steps recommended by the City's Design Guidelines to ensure that and the essential form and integrity of the building would not be impaired, the addition and alterations are corr1patible in massing, size, scale and architectural features, and to differentiate the new work from the old. The addition would be reversible. The proposed work meets this standard.
The proposed changes to the garage, fencing, and landscaping work proposed has been approved many times in similar cases by the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Staff, and would not have an effect on the integrity of the house, nearby buildings, or surrounding Avenues Historic District.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed and further recommends that final approval be delegated to staff if any minor revisions or additional details are required by the City."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Ms. Heid stated that the narrative said that the tax photograph was from 1936, but the photograph is marked 1956. Mr. Knight said that there was some confusion with how the photographs were labeled. He added that the photograph was stapled to a tax card completed in the 1950s.
Mr. Christensen mentioned that he had the san1e experience when he found the tax photograph of his house from 1936. Mr. Knight suggested that the photograph may have been moved and reattached to another card.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Lynn Morgan, the applicant, was present. Mr. Simonsen inquired about updated drawings. Mr. Morgan said that he realized that the elevation directions were not correct, but would be corrected. He also said that he would be extending the lean-to addition in back out seven feet farther than the shell of the existing house.
Mr. Morgan indicated that the site form indicated that the house was built in 1893, but there was a cabin on the site built in 1884, which is still in place. He added that the cabin's gable ends are visible from the attic and the roof form was continued for an 8:12 pitch roof, which is not typical for a Victorian styling.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by clarifying that the walls underneath the brick facade were stucco. Mr. Morgan said that the house was stuccoed and at some time in the 1950s or 1960s the owners re-stuccoed with a stamped brick pattern. Mr. Ashdown inquired if adobe was underneath the stucco. Mr. Morgan said that adobe was used for the cabin but fired masonry was used for the balance of the house. Mr. Ashdown commended the applicant for restoring the windows. Mr. Morgan said that the windows would be taken apart and the materials would be matched as closely as possible where necessary. Mr. Morgan said that he believed it would be a very good project when completed.
Mr. Christensen asked the applicant if the front door was always that wide. Mr. Morgan said that a pair of French doors were in that opening of the cabin according to the original photograph, which is to the side of the porch. Mr. Morgan said the main front door enters from the side. He said that he wanted the cabin to read through. Mr. Morgan added that the cabin is more of a primitive Utah vernacular early Pioneer cabin. He also said that the two dormers would be more vertical and the dominant dormers would be the ones proposed for the front.
Mr. Morgan stated that the chimney would be restored because it serves a working fire place in the dining room. Mr. Christensen commented that he also thought it would be a very nice project.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session:
A discussion took place regarding the Palladian window configuration proposed for the project.
Ms. Giraud said Palladian windows are often used inappropriately in new construction. She said that window configuration would be seen in the era when the house was constructed and in this neighborhood. Ms. Mickelsen added that often they are out of character with the house and neighborhood.
Mr. Simonsen said that the Palladian window configuration in the front gable end is appropriate in this project. Mr. Littig concurred that the window configuration would be appropriate in this project.
Mr. Christensen said that Palladian windows in new construction are usually very oversized and out of proportion and tend to read as fake windows with artificial divisions. He inquired if the proposed window configuration would have true divided panes and functional sashes. Mr. Knight said that was correct.
Motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved to accept staff's findings of fact and recommendation and approve Case No. 002-03 as proposed, with the final detailing and any changes delegated to staff for final review. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 003-03. at 415 So. Douglas Street, by Suzanne Marelius. represented by Elizabeth Blackner of AJC Architects, requesting to replace the rear additions on the home located in the University Historic District.
Ms. Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Lew said that the applicant, Suzanne Marelius, represented by Liz Blackner, architect, was requesting approval to replace several extensions to the rear of the house. The home is located in the University Historic District, which was locally designated as a historic district in November of 1991. The base zoning of the property is R-2.
Ms. Lew gave the following background information: According to the historic site form completed in 1980, George Whitaker constructed this residence in about 1892. The physical evidence inside the building, such as the lack of foundation on the enclosed shed porch and northern one room addition. The 1911 Sanborn map indicated that the house was probably expanded sometime before 1911. The hipped roof middle section may be a later addition as well, because it does not have the same architectural detailing (dentiled cornice) as the front of the home. However, the rough stone foundation does continue under this portion of the house. Construction dates for the additions are difficult to determine because this area of the district was not included on earlier Sanborn maps.
Ms. Lew presented the following proposal: Ms. Marelius lives in the adjacent house to the north and purchased the subject property to accommodate the future needs of her family. The applicant originally had thoughts of demolishing the entire structure or constructing a second story addition. She is now proposing a one-story addition, with approximately 870 additional square feet of space (not including an unfinished basement level), which would replace the later additions to the rear. The finished portion of the new addition will provide space for two bathrooms, a kitchen and a bathroom. The applicant initially submitted plans that showed a stucco wall surface on the entire building. Based on discussions with staff and Don Hartley, SHPO architect, the applicant intends to restore the front portion of the structure including the porch as shown in the attached tax photo and replace the wood shingle siding on the front fa9ade at a later date. Future work may also include a carport. Greater detail on the proposed materials has not yet been submitted.
Ms. Lew referred to referred to Section 21A.34.020(G) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City.
Ms. Lew stated that staff determined that the following standards are pertinent to this application:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Staff's discussion: This house is a simple frame vernacular structure with a hipped roof, gabled front bay and dentiled cornice. These details would remain; it will be the massing of the rear portion of the structure that would be altered. The house has experienced the typical alterations made to increase the size of smaller historic homes in the past. Such earlier additions were often tacked onto a building and poorly constructed, lacked adequate foundations and would require significant work to structurally stabilize and meet the needs of current property owners. In this case, the north wing extends to the property line and merely accommodates the only bedroom and a lavatory facility. A more recent alteration, the front porch is now concrete with wrought iron supports and railing, and the porch roof has been modified as well. The applicant is proposing a restoration of the porch sometime in the future.
Staff's finding of fact: Recognizing that some exterior alterations to historic buildings are generally needed to assure their continued use, staff believes that these needs cannot be met by restoring the existing secondary spaces located to the rear of this building. Replacing the earlier additions is thus a viable alternative to maintain the continued use of the residence. It is in a secondary area of the house, where the Historic Landmark Corr1mission has consistently allowed changes to occur.
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed.
Staff's discussion: Placing the new addition to the rear of the historic structure, where it does not affect the building's streetscape appearance will rr1inimize the visual impact on the primary structure and allow its character defining features to remain prominent. Additionally, the new addition will be designed to be clearly distinguishable from the historic structure, but is sympathetic with its historic character. The new work is differentiated from the old by a change in material and a jog in the foundation between the original building and the new addition.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed new construction will be recognizable as a product of its own time. The proposed project meets this standard.
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Staff's discussion: Although the proposed project would replace earlier additions, this approach has been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission in the past, and demonstrates that additions can be successful if the original form of the primary structure is retained and the design of the new addition is compatible with the historic character of the original structure.
The remaining historic structure would be substantially smaller than the new addition. Staff, however, believes that the proposed project is a sympathetic and compatible addition that would fit into the context of the neighborhood. As stated above, the one story addition would be sited behind and would jog slightly to the north of the existing structure. The proposed materials and details of the addition differentiate it from the historic portion of the house. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to restore the front of the building as depicted in the tax photo, although this would occur during a later phase of the project.
Ms. Lew pointed out that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City lines also recommend such an approach:
8.1 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
Staff's finding of fact: The character-defining elements of the primary structure will be retained and restored by the proposed project. The proposed project meets this standard.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects.
Staff's discussion: The proposed project will retain as much of the existing primary structure as possible. However, some of the historic fabric of the front of the building was removed during a more recent remodel. As previously noted, the applicant is willing to restore the front of the building based upon the physical evidence provided by the tax photo, although this would occur during a later phase of the project.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed project complies with this standard.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Staff's discussion: Although the proposed addition is large in relation to the existing building footprint, the mass of the addition is located behind and is subordinate to the original portion of the house. The fenestration as shown on the elevations is compatible with the pattern of door and window openings as seen on the historic building. However, greater detail is needed to fully evaluate the new materials.
The massing of the new construction will help make the addition distinguishable from the original portion of the building, but the plans show a stucco wall surface on the entire building. The applicant has agreed to maintain the original siding material that will further define the transition from old to new construction. The hipped roof of the proposed addition is similar in shape and scale to the existing roof structure and to those found historically in the neighborhood.
12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council.
Staff's finding of fact: The Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City is applicable in this case. The proposed project is in keeping with the design standards as discussed above.
Ms. Lew reported that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City offer the following guidance on the siting, massing, size, and scale of an addition: [Please note that the full text was included in the staff report.]
8.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
8.3 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.
8.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
8.5 Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building.
8.6 Do not construct a new addition or alteration that will hinder one's ability to interpret the historic character of the building or structure.
8.7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street.
8.8 Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition.
8.9 Minimize negative technical effects to original features when designing an addition.
8.10 Use windows in the addition that are similar in character to those of the historic building or structure.
Ground Level Additions:
8.14 Keep a new addition physically and visually subordinate to the historic building.
8.15 Roof forms shall be similar to those of the historic building.
8.16 On primary facades of an addition, use a solid-to-void ratio that is similar to that of the historic building.
Staffs finding of fact: The design of the addition makes use of the basic principles recommended by the City's Design Guidelines to ensure that the essential form and integrity of the primary portion of the historic building will not be adversely affected by the new construction. The proposed addition is located to the rear of the primary structure and is compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features. The new work is distinguishable from the old and it would be possible, although not likely, to remove the addition. The proposed project complies with this standard.
Ms. Lew offered the following staff’s recommendation: "Based upon the above analysis and recognizing that staff believes that the applicant's desire for a larger house in order to meet the future needs of her family cannot be met by altering the earlier additions, staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Final details of the design of the proposed project, including materials and window and door treatment, shall be delegated to the Architectural Subcommittee, rather than the Preservation Staff; and
2. This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements.
If the Commission decides to deny the request, it should adopt findings supported by substantial evidence.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
A short discussion took place regarding the carport shown on the site plan. Ms. Lew said that the carport might be considered at a later date and reviewed by the Commission.
Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Suzanne Marelius, the applicant, as well as her architect, Ms. Liz Blackner, were present. Ms. Marelius said that she has lived in her home for 16 years and enjoys living in the neighborhood. She said that the house had continued to deteriorate because the owner was an invalid and was not able to maintain it. Ms. Marelius said that she purchased the home after the owner died because her desperate fear was that someone would buy it and not improve it.
Ms. Marelius stated that she hired Ms. Blackner of AJC Architects who talked her out of tearing down the entire structure. She said she believed the back half of the house should be torn down and an addition be constructed that would suit her family's needs. Ms. Marelius said she was pleased with the proposal. She pointed out the big window and the detailing in the front.
Ms. Marelius asked if she could read a letter of support into the record from the property owners at 417 So. Douglas Street. Mr. Simonsen said that she could.
Ms. Marelius read the following letter into the record: "Our family has lived adjacent to the home at 415 Douglas Street for seven years. The home at 415 is badly in need of repair. It has not been improved or even maintained for many, many years. It is the 'eyesore' of the neighborhood in its present state. The home holds beauty historically or otherwise. We believe the improvements Ms. Marelius has planned would be an asset to the neighborhood. We reviewed the plans. We support the remodel 100 percent. The changes will restore the original charm and beauty to the home, as well as beatify the neighborhood. We believe this remodel will benefit everyone. Please support Ms. Marelius in this long overdue endeavor. Sincerely Todd and Melissa Shaughnessy." A copy was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Ms. Blackner said that she would be happy to answer any technical questions the
Commissioners may have regarding the project.
Ms. Marelius said she believed the size of the addition would be smaller than was indicated in the staff report. Ms. Blackner said that the square footage was correct, but the additional footprint would be only 25 percent more than what would be removed.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Christensen inquired if the owner had been able to locate historic photographs of the house. Ms. Blackner said that Ms. Lew had found one. Ms. Lew circulated the copy of a photograph of the structure. Ms. Marelius said that the existing porch is not like the porch shown in the photograph. She said that she was happy the photograph was located so she would know what direction to take when the front porch is restored. Mr. Christensen clarified that the applicant would be interested in restoring the front porch in the same configuration as in the photograph. Ms. Blackner said that it is a matter of the budget. She added that the priority was to make the house habitable. Ms. Blackner said that the front porch would eventually be restored. Ms. Lew apologized for not having a copy of the photograph in the Commission packets. Mr. Christensen said that the front window does not read as something from the era of original construction. Ms. Blackner agreed and said she believed it was installed during the 1950s upgrade.
Mr. Simonsen asked if the intent was to use similar siding. Ms. Blackner said she did not know and that the applicant was open to suggestions. Ms. Blackner said that the applicant's first choice would be stucco on the addition because of its qualities and the fact that it would not need to be repainted. She added that there are stucco houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Blackner pointed out that she believed some of the existing siding on the side elevations that could be the original.
Mr. Parvaz said that the plans make references to an alternative site plan, which says "Alternative, front porch re-build, basement finish, and refinish existing living room. Dining room to remain." Ms. Blackner said that was for bidding purposes which would determine the budget. She said that the applicant would be asking the contractor for Alternative No. 1, which would be to restore the front porch. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the dash lines on Site Plan No. A1.1. Ms. Blackner said that would be the proposed layout for the basement when it is finished.
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the two windows on the south elevation, which could be seen in the photograph, would be restored. Ms. Blackner noticed one window was filled in, but said that was a good possibility. Ms. Marelius said that could be done when the living and dining rooms are upgraded. She also said that she wanted to keep the front as well as the windows on the side elevations. Ms. Mickelsen said that it would make the south elevation more balanced and friendlier and allow more light into the living room.
There was some discussion regarding what was to be reviewed at this meeting. It was understood that details of the project were lacking on the site plan. The discussion focused on the restoration of the front porch if funding was available to the applicant. Mr. Simonsen believed that a motion could be made for the demolition of the existing addition in the back and replacing it with a new addition, as well as the restoration of the front porch, with details being reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee or staff. Ms. Marelius said that she would appreciate not having to come back to the full Commission for the front porch restoration.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session:
Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion for this case. The Commissioners continued to discuss the circumstances surrounding the project, such as what to include in the motion and the lack of details on the site plans.
First motion:
Mr. Christensen moved to accept staff's findings of fact and recommendation for Case No. 003-03, and approve the demolition of the addition in the back of the structure and approve the construction of a new addition as shown on the drawings including the mass, form, roof pitch, but with the following stipulations on the overall project: 1) The carport shown on the site plan is not to be considered in any way as part of this approval; 2) Additional details on the windows are to be submitted, both in the existing structure and the new addition; 3) Clarification of the materials used for siding; and 4) The front porch would be restored to original, based on historical evidence available, including the historic photograph shown the Commission at this meeting, but was not included in the staff report.
The discussion continued. Ms. Giraud inquired about the final review of the details. Mr. Christensen amended his motion.
Ms. Mickelsen said that she just noticed the height differential between the old and new and would like to clarify how much of a differential that would be. She did not want it to turn out like the home on 1200 East with the large addition.
Since there were additional questions for the applicant, it was the general consensus of the members of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting for public comment. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the height of the roof. Ms. Blackner stated that it would be approximately three feet higher than the top of the remaining portion of the house.
Mr. Simonsen thought that was addressed in Mr. Christensen's motion. Mr. Christensen said that he was comfortable with it a little higher because it would be far enough back behind the old structure, which would keep the roof pitch the same as proposed. Mr. Ashdown did not believe it would be incompatible with the other houses in the neighborhood.
Ms. Blackner asked that if it were not possible to restore the front porch at this time, would that prevent the addition from being constructed. Mr. Simonsen said that it would not. However, Mr. Ashdown said that it would prevent the front porch from being torn down and leaving it.
Mr. Simonsen concurred.
Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting for public comment, since there were no additional questions for the applicant.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Christensen moved to accept staff's findings of fact and recommendation for Case No. 003-03, and approve the demolition of the addition in the back of the structure and approve the construction of a new addition as shown on the drawings including the mass, form, roof pitch, but with the following stipulations on the overall project: 1) The carport shown on the site plan is not to be considered in any way as part of this approval; 2) Additional details on the windows are to be submitted, both in the existing structure and the new addition; 3) Clarification of the materials used for the exterior for the original structure and the addition; 4) The front porch would be restored to original, based on historical evidence available, including the historic photograph shown the Commission at this meeting, but was not included in the staff report; 4) The front porch is not to be torn down before the front porch restoration project begins; and 5) The final review and approval would be given by the Architectural Subcommittee. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he had to leave because he had to attend a City Council meeting in Roy, Utah, and turned the meeting over to Ms. Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson. Mr. Simonsen excused himself and left the meeting. Mr. Christensen said that he had a conflicting meeting as well and excused himself and left the meeting. After it was determined that a quorum of members remained, Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, sustained the meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Case No. 004-03. a presentation by consultant. Bee Lufkin. to solicit comments for listing a National Register Multiple-Property Nomination, "Sugar House Business District Multiple Resource Area". and ten associated properties.
Ms. Giraud stated that this case is a multiple nomination of the Sugar House Business District for the National Register of Historic Places. She stated that the owners would be eligible to receive both state and federal tax credits, but would not be subjected to review preservation issues by the City, so staff encourages National Register nominations.
Ms. Giraud said that the Sugar House Community Council was able to get Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money to hire a consultant to prepare the nominations and hired a consultant, Bee Lufkin, who is here today. She mentioned that the nominations were called out in the Sugar House Master Plan. She added that tying multiple property nominations together develops a theme, so it might be easier to nominate individually listed buildings in the future.
Ms. Giraud talked about the challenge of writing this nomination because there are not many pristine commercial buildings left in Sugar House. She said she thought it was worth submitting the nominations because the flavor and scale of Sugar House as a business district is still evident. Ms. Giraud added that the hope being if a few buildings could be renovated it would help reinforce the traditional scale that is evident in the Sugar House Business District.
Ms. Giraud mentioned that the Historic Landmark Comn1ission, as well as any local commission, only makes comments, and if the commission votes to forward a favorable recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) their review board would have the opportunity to vote and if it is favorable, the nominations would be sent to the Parks Service, the Department of Interior, in Washington D.C. to consider listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Giraud introduced Ms. Bee Lufkin who had prepared a slide presentation of the Sugar House Business District and the ten associated properties. She explained the significance of the buildings and the Sugar House area.
Ms. Lufkin narrated the slide presentation. Members of the Commission, as well as staff made comments and asked questions throughout the presentation.
Ms. Lufkin said that there were three building types in the presentation, commercial, institutional, and civic. She said that in 2000 the State Historic Preservation Office completed a reconnaissance survey, which identified the buildings from the historic period. She reported that in Sugar House on 2100 South from 900 East and 1300 East, including one block in either direction, SHPO identified 44 buildings from the historic period, and of these, 18 retain their historic integrity and 26 have been modified beyond recognition. Ms. Lufkin stated, 'We want to encourage the building owners to restore and maintain their buildings."
Ms. Lufkin said that Sugar House started as a residential area and industry soon followed. She said the first ward was organized in 1854. Ms. Lufkin talked about the sugar mill (which did not produce much sugar), many other mills, and commercial areas.
Ms. Lufkin presented historic photos of the Sugar House area and the beginning of the plaza. It was noted that Parleys Creek was not on the surface but underground.
Sugar House Business District Multiple Resource Area:
The Sugar House area began in 1848. The Big Field Survey in 1848 divided the land around the Salt Lake City settlement into five and ten acre plots to be used for farming for the inhabitants of the city. Sugar House is four and a half miles southeast of the downtown area of Salt Lake City. Sugar House was not a planned town but a settlement that grew in response to industrial and later transportation needs and opportunities. The creek that came through the area from the canyon directly to the east, was important in the development of Sugar House as it provided water for early settlement and agriculture and later powered the early mill-related industries.
Transportation connections were an important element in the growth of the Sugar House business district. The territorial prison was established to the east of the business district. Streetcar lines connecting the prison to Salt Lake City ran through Sugar House. The area grew because streetcar access made it possible to live in outlying areas and get rapidly to and from work in downtown Salt Lake City. Railroad connections also helped the commercial center expand. The Salt Lake and Eastern Railroad, built during 1880-1890 connected Sugar House with Park City via Parley's Canyon. After the 1893 depression, the Denver and Rio Grande Western took over the lines to Park City and the Sugar House station, which was located at 2215 So. Highland Drive, and later demolished.
Little remains to show the origins of Sugar House. The commercial center grew up where it did because of natural and manmade features that no longer exist. The railroad and streetcar tracks have been removed and the Salt Lake Jordan Canal and creek are below ground in the commercial center. As a commercial center, the area had been subject to frequent renewals and modernizations, leaving few clues as to its history. Few known buildings exist from this early period.
Granite Lumber Company Building, 1090 East 2100 South:
The Granite Lumber Company was founded in 1901 by Nephi Hansen, who was known as the "mayor of Sugar House" for his leadership in the commercial and civic affairs of Sugar House. The Granite Lumber Company gradually changed to a greater emphasis on retail hardware and its name changed to the Granite Lumber and Hardware Company in1921 and finally the Granite Hardware Company in 1928. In 1932, the Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution (ZCMI) opened the Granite Mart in the building and was used as an outlet for merchandise from ZCMI's closing branch stores throughout Utah.
The Granite Lumber Company Building is a red brick, two-story, commercial style building built in two major phases, c. 1900-08 and 1919, and located in the center of the Sugar House commercial district. The Granite Lumber Company constructed an addition to the east in 1919 and the two sections have had the same ownership and use since their construction, and the interior space is shared. Instead of a dividing wall between the two buildings on the first floor, there are iron columns supporting the floor above in as an open retail area with no interior walls. The building retains its original fabric on the second floor and historic period openings on the first floor.
Sugar House Ward Building. 1950 South 1200 East:
The Sugar House Ward Building, was built in 1924. Sugar House Ward hired Joseph Don Carlos Young, a church architect, and he used a standard plan developed by Colonel Willard Young, adapted for its site. The building is a red brick two-story Colonial Revival church building in a "U" shape consisting of two parallel gabled wings with a single story open colonnaded portico connecting them. The design of the building was called "the Colonel's twins".
A bas-relief mural of the Susquehanna River Valley and Hill Cumorah in New York, sites associated with the origins of the LOS religion in the early nineteenth century, is found on the west wall above the rostrum. Changes to the interior and exterior appearance of the building have been minor. The cedar-shingled roof has been replaced with asphalt shingles. The Sugar House Ward chapel building is still used for LOS religious purposes.
Crown Cleaning and Dyeing Company Building. 1987 South 1100 East:
John Barnes began the Crown Cleaning and Dyeing Company in 1920 and continued to work with partners in the business until it moved to Sugar House. He and Bertha, his wife, were joint owners. They purchased the property and hired the noted local architect, Slack W. Winburn, to design the building. It was constructed in 1925 with offices at the front and workrooms at the rear. The architecture was noted for its stylish elaborate facade. They owned and operated the Crown Cleaning and Dyeing Company together from 1922 until Bertha retired in 1961. The property was acquired by M.P. Smith Properties, Ltd. C. Kay Cummings Candies leased the property from the mid-1970s to the rnid-1980s. The building housed their candy manufacturing operation, offices, and retail store at the front. J. Scott Anderson, Design, followed the candy company and is still the current tenant.
The building is a Revival Neoclassical styling, which was often used to give dignity to institutional buildings like banks, churches, post offices, and courthouses. The Neoclassical styling references the classical motifs of Greek and Roman temples with colonnades and/or porticos. Rather than complete columns supporting a portico, as found on larger, more elaborate building types, the Crown Cleaning and Dyeing Company Building has four pilasters supporting a simplified entablature.
Richardson-Bower Building. 1019 East 2100 South:
The property was originally part of the extensive landholdings of Brigham Young. After his death it passed through several owners before being purchased by three partners in 1925. The partners and their wives were: George L. and Alice R. Biesinger, a contractor; John and Ada Burt, Jr., a barber; and Junius B. and Inez Keddington, a manager at K & K Engineering Company. They jointly took out a mortgage and hired a contractor, George Bowles, to construct a one-story brick garage.
Richardson-Bower, Inc. was a distributor of Dodge Brothers motorcars and Graham Brothers Trucks with its main showroom in downtown Salt Lake City. The Sugar House building was only used in 1926 by Richardson-Bower and was listed as vacant in the 1927 Polk directory. The other locations of the company continued.
The building was separated into two business spaces and there were two tenants throughout the historic period. One of the businesses was always automotive-related, a garage or auto parts and supplies. By 1928 P & D Garage occupied part and the Binnington Brothers, tinsmiths, occupied the other half. By 1930 Ashton Auto Company had replaced the P & D Garage. A 1947 photo shows an auto-related business and a shoe repair service (Milt's Shoe Service). In 1951, Ace Auto and Tip Top Shoe Service occupied the building. In 1933 the partners lost the property in a sheriff's deed to the Sugar Banking Company and lone M. Overfield purchased it in 1934. The property remains with her family today.
The architecture of the building is Period Revival Neoclassical styling. The vernacular version of the style used for the Richardson-Bower Building has four pilasters supporting a simplified entablature rather than complete columns supporting a portico, as found on larger, more elaborate building types.
Sprague Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library, 2131 So. Highland Drive:
The Sprague Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library was built in 1928. It was constructed in the Jacobethan Revival style of brick masonry in a period cottage form. Its property boundary on the northwest is Parley's Creek, which is currently underground in conduit. The building is a colorful combination of brick, stone, terra cotta, cast concrete, and slate. The foundation is a rock-faced ashlar sandstone in a pale buff color. The slate roofing varies in color with predominant tones of grays, blues, and purple.
Efforts have been made over the years to maintain and improve the building beginning in 1954 with work on the foundation and continuing with interior renovation in 1971. The 1989-90 remodeling project stabilized the foundation, removed asbestos, added a rear entry/handicapped access, installed an elevator, replaced lighting throughout, installed energy efficient heating and cooling systems, upgraded the electrical system, insulated the attic, and did other improvements.
Renovations completed in the spring of 2001, included improvements to the children's area and the reading room, as well as the addition of a new community meeting room and staff office space on the ground (lower) floor with a leaded glass skylight pyramid on the east plaza. The plaza is the roof of the addition and provides an outdoor gathering space in the traditional space to the east of the building. The library retains its original appearance from the traditional entrance on 1100 East.
Granite Stake Tabernacle. 2005 South 900 East:
The Granite Stake Tabernacle is a two-story brick and fieldstone church building, constructed in 1929 with an addition in 1951. The 1929 building was designed by the firm of Anderson and Young, architects. It was known as "Solomon's Temple" because of the costs of its design and construction. The style is Early Christian/Byzantine that occurred in Utah from 1910-1935 and was primarily used for ecclesiastical buildings. Few alterations have been made to the exterior of the building and nothing that affects its overall historic integrity.
Entrance doors on the north and south sides on the east end of the building of the original Lincoln Ward pierce a belt course. On the north and south elevations a second concrete stringcourse serves as a lintel for the first floor windows and as a sill for the top floor windows.
The windows have a range of decorative treatments from segmental arches, round arches and soldier courses of brick as headers. The entrances have similar decorative elements.
The most major change to the building since construction is the addition of the smaller Lincoln Ward chapel building to the north in 1951. Other changes over the years to the building have been primarily interior maintenance, which had no effect on the historic integrity of the exterior.
Sugar House Monument, 1100 East and 2100 South:
The Sugar House Monument, built in 1930, is located on a plaza/traffic island in the center of the Sugar House commercial district, at the southeast intersection of 1100 East and 2100 South, surrounded by two-story commercial buildings. The plan for a monument grew out of a suggestion made by Millard Malin, a sculptor. The monument consists of a fifty-foot high shaft of carved Indiana limestone with a core of Portland cement. The monument is in a simplified Art Deco style that occurred in Utah primarily from 1930-1940. The carved limestone bands that run horizontally along the north and south sides of the pool beds, as well as two bands at the bottom section of the shaft above the seated statues, have stylized plant and natural motifs. It has a sego lily at the center and is surrounded by the sun with its corona, stars, planets, and a crescent moon.
Two bronze eight foot high seated figures flank the shaft at the base at the top of three curving steps on the east and west sides of the shaft, one a man and the other a woman. The male figure was of a stonemason working on the monument. There are two eight-foot tall Native American relief figures at the top of the shaft, also facing east and west, and according to Malin, representing "the passing of the Red Man." The Native American facing east holds war implements (a shield and tomahawk) and the one facing to the west holds a peace pipe "in defeat."
The brass bas-relief plaque of the old sugar mill is found on the north side of the monument. It was part of Malin's original design but not added to the monument until 1948. Initially there were two long narrow pools extending to the east and west at the base of the monument. The pool beds were filled with flowers by 1949 and as of 2002 contain decorative plantings.
Utah State Liquor Agency #22. 1983 South 1100 East:
The Utah State Liquor Agency #22 Building is a striated red brick, single-story one-part block commercial building. It was constructed in 1945 as a storefront addition to a c. 1896 brick house at the rear and further modified in 1966. The house has been demolished. The facade of the building is simple with very little ornament and smooth wall surfaces. The twelve-inch parapet has ceramic tile coping which conceals the flat roof.
Redman Van and Storage Company Building, 1240 East 2100 South:
The Redman Van and Storage Company building, designed by the firm of Ashton and Evans, architects, is a five-story warehouse constructed in 1947 by Ellis W. Barker Construction Company. The building is constructed of reinforced concrete with stucco cladding on the facade. It has an almost square footprint and extends seventy feet back into the lot. As a tall building between surrounding primarily one and two-story commercial structures and situated on a rise, it has a prominent location in the Sugar House business District. "Redman" is spelled out in large freestanding letter signs, typical of postwar buildings. These are located above the roof on both the east and west sides and visible for a distance in both directions. The same Redman sign logo is found over the entry door.
The building style is industrial Art Moderne with Art Deco elements. The abstract vertical motifs of Art Deco are combined in the building with the smooth wall surfaces of Art Moderne. Art Moderne was popular in Utah in the 1930s and 1940s. Curved glass block walls frame the central inset entrance door and plate glass retail display areas surround all of the entrances. The facade is faced with hard marble on the first floor and a metal cornice projects over the first floor office space.
The building is significant for its reflection of the time when Highway 40 (2100 South) was a major national east-west automobile route. The moving and storage business requires access to highways for moving goods into and out of state, as well as space for its vans. Benjamin Redman, an early Utah pioneer, founded the company in 1891. The building is still maintained and used for Redman Van and Storage Company corporate offices today.
In 1980 the building was sold to Victor Ayers, the current owner. He in turn has leased space to various businesses, one of which was a company that provided movie props and production facilities. The lessee changed the name of his company to "Redman Movies and Stories", and subsequently changed the historic building and roof signs to match in the early 1990s. The signs now read "Redman Movies and Stories", but the logo and the look of the signs remains the same. The tenant has since left but the changed signs remain. The owner is investigating development options for the building and at one point took plans for conversion of the building into condominiums to the Sugar House Community Council. The council approved of the condominium conversion, but they want the historic Redman sign and logo to remain.
Petty Motor Company Annex. 2030 South 900 East:
The Petty Motor Company existed in Utah before it opened the Ford automotive dealership in Sugar House in 1936. At the time 2100 South was also Highway 40 and served as a major east-west highway route across the country. Routine automotive maintenance took place at the dealership and their volume was such that they needed a body shop as well. The annex was built as a specialized body and paint shop across the street in 1948-49.
The red brick, flat-roofed building was designed by Clifford Evans, architect, and built by Gibbons and Reed, contractors. Thick brick mullions break the symmetrical facade into four bays with tall plate glass display windows and an enlarged central mullion/pier.
The facility was used as a body shop and painting annex for Petty Motor Company's Ford dealership until c. 1970 when Petty Motor Company discontinued the dealership with Ford. It continued in automotive-related use until 1999 when the complex was remodeled and changed to retail usage. It is currently occupied by a number of small retail operations with direct entrance from the parking area. It is still owned by the original owner, the Petty Motor Company.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Ms. Lufkin. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by saying that the application only showed the buildings for nomination to be included on the National Register and not the land. He said that the site was also an historical aspect of the building and it should be acknowledged as
part of the norr1ination. He believed that the shape and location of the site is historically important. Mr. Parvaz said that those two elements were important when the building was designed. He remarked that he has had this question before and it has not been resolved. Ms. Lufkin said that the footprint of the building and the location of the building in the block are included with the nomination. Mr. Parvaz explained that on the second page of the registration form, there is a place to check the classification of the building and the site, but the site is not marked, only the building. Mr. Knight stated that the Park Service defines the site classification differently. Ms. Giraud concurred. She continued by saying that her impression is that the Parks Services lists the classifications as buildings, sites, structures, or objects and they are very rigid with their definitions. Mr. Knight said that the Parks Service looks at a "site" as being something like an "archeological site" or a "park" that does not have "built" features such as buildings. Ms. Giraud noted that she would obtain a copy of the bulletin that the Parks Service provides which is the one used to prepare nominations. She added that if the directions are not followed contained in the bulletin and how classifications are described, the adrr1inistration returns the documents to SHPO. This discussion continued. Mr. Knight concluded by saying that staff would obtain some information to try to resolve the issue.
Mr. Ashdown clarified that when buildings are included on the National Register, they are not bound by the preservation ordinance of Salt Lake City. Ms. Giraud said that was correct, unless they are also included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen said that she would entertain a motion.
Motion:
Ms. Heid moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office {SHPO) for Case No. 004-03 to include the Sugar House Business District Multiple Resource Area on the National Register of Historic Places, along with the following ten associated properties:
1. Granite Lumber Company Building, 1090 East 2100 South;
2. Sugar House Ward Building, 1950 South 1200 East;
3. Crown Cleaning and Dyeing Company Building, 1987 South 1100 East;
4. Richardson-Bower Building, 1019 East 2100 South;
5. Sprague Branch of the Salt Lake City Public Library, 2131 So. Highland Drive;
6. Granite Stake Tabernacle, 2005 South 900 East;
7. Sugar House Monument, 1100 East and 2100 South;
8. Utah State Liquor Agency #22, 1983 South 1100 East.
9. Redman Van and Storage Company Building, 1240 East 2100 South; and
10.Petty Motor Company Annex, 2030 South 900 East.
Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Mr. Parvas was opposed. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Heid moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:15P.M.