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 Pete Ashdown, Paula Carl, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Kevin LoPiccolo, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Paula Carl, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. David Fitzsimmons and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Programs Supervisor/Zoning Administrator, Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission 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.
Mr. Simonsen commented that all present Commissioners were on the field trip so they had visited the sites.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no remarks, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. LoPiccolo reported that Mr. Zunguze would not be able to attend the meeting. He stated that Ms. Cheri Coffey had been appointed as Deputy Planning Director and she will be attending the Historic Landmark Commission meetings. Mr. LoPiccolo said that Mr. Joel Paterson had been appointed as Planning Programs Supervisor and will also be attending these meetings. He stated that he thought the Historic Landmark Commission was a notable Commission and he has enjoyed working with preservation issues. Mr. LoPiccolo indicated that he would be attending the Board of Adjustment meetings.
Ms. Coffey stated that there were two teams working in the Planning Division. Mr. LoPiccolo would be leading one team and Mr. Paterson the other. She added that the transformation would balance the workload in the office.
On behalf of the entire Commission, Mr. Simonsen congratulated Ms. Coffey and Mr. Paterson, although Mr. Paterson was not able to attend this meeting, on their new appointments. He said that he was happy to have both Ms. Coffey and Mr. Paterson back again and said that he looked forward to working with them.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Ashdown moved to approve the minutes of the April 6, 2005 meeting, noting a correction. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Parvaz voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen and Ms. Mickelsen abstained. Mr. Fitzsimmons and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 028-04. at 239 East 100 South. by the Cathedral Church of Saint Mark. represented by Dwight Nicholson. architect, requesting final approval for the construction of a new two-story addition on the northeast section of the Cathedral. developing a plaza. and constructing a building to house the food pantry on the southeast portion of the property. The property is listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Mr. Ashdown recused himself from this case and left the room.
Ms. Cheri Coffey 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.
The following is an overview of the project:
On November 3, 2004, the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed and passed a motion to conceptually approve modifications to the Cathedral Church of Saint Mark. The Commission approved the demolition of Spalding Hall and conceptual drawings to construct a new addition on the northeast corner of the Cathedral, rehabilitate the rear of the Cathedral, develop a plaza area and construct a small building to house a food pantry east of the Cathedral. The Commission requested that the applicant return to the full Commission with detailed drawings for final approval. The applicant submitted the detailed drawings which addressed the following aspects of the Commission's specific request:
1. Detailed information relative to form, massing, and scale;
2. Food Bank details (including location);
3. Connection of the new roof of the Parish Hall to the Cathedral;
4. Lowering the roofline of the new Parish Hall so it does not compete with the pitch of the Cathedral; and
5. Details of the windows, headers, sills, soffit, fascia, eaves, and brick surrounding the Rose windows.
On December 8, 2004, the Planning Commission granted approval of the Planned Development request that relates not only to the proposed Diocesan Center to the west, but also included approval of the location of the Food Bank.
Ms. Coffey stated that staff recommended approval for the project by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions of Staff. Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Dwight Nicholson of Eldredge Nicholson Architects, representing the applicant, was present. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Nicholson described the new addition project and the rehabilitation of the rear of the Cathedral in the following manner:
1. The roof would be dropped on the sides of the proposed addition which changed the pitch of the roof making it lower than the Cathedral;
2. The connection of the proposed addition to the existing building would be at the same location so no new holes needed to be cut and the roofline would be connected to the Cathedral at the same point as previously proposed;
3. Small scaled reddish-yellow brick veneer would be used on the exterior;
4. The window sills and heads would be Torrey sandstone, which was used during the repair work that was previously done about 20 years ago;
5. Windows would be a pre-finished aluminum system by Apco that would mimic a single-hung window. There would be some venting. It is the same system that was used on the Rowland Hall/St. Marks' campus on Lincoln Street;
6. Wood would be used for the trim, fascia, soffit, and eaves;
7. A copper gutter system is anticipated;
8. Roofing would be a premium grade of asphalt, which would look like slate gray or black; and
9. An architectural grade concrete matching the retaining walls would be used on the east side of the property adjacent to the neighboring parking lot.
Mr. Nicholson described the proposed construction of the food bank building project in the following manner:
1. The west side garden wall would be faced with sandstone to match the front retaining wall;
2. The east facade would be faced with sandstone; and
3. An aluminum storefront system, matching the window color of the new addition would be used.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking if the applicant planned to use concrete for the face of the walls and the roofing material. Mr. Nicholson said that the building would be set on an architectural grade concrete base to protect the brick on the walls for the long term. He stated that the applicant was still debating on the roofing material. Mr. Nicholson pointed out that it would probably be built up with a gravel finish, or a membrane with a white finish would be used. He noted since the roof top would be seen from the new addition, colored gravel was also discussed. When Mr. Parvaz inquired about the rooftop mechanics, Mr. Nicholson said, “It should be pretty clean”.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Scott Rosevear stated that he was an attorney with the law firm that represented Cummings Investment Corporation, which owns the building directly to the east of the proposed project. He said that Cummings Investment Corporation was a huge supporter of this project, as well as the food bank service. Mr. Rosevear displayed a map which showed where people line up on the sidewalk for the food bank. He expressed concern that people standing in line for the food bank would block the entrance of the parking lot of Cummings Investment. Mr. Rosevear asked that signage be placed that would notify people not to block the ingress/egress to the parking lot of the building. Mr. Simonsen inquired if this matter had been presented at the Planning Commission hearing, as well. Mr. Rosevear said that it was one of the conditions of approval by the Planning Commission.
Upon hearing no additional comments 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 discussion or motion at this time. Mr. Simonsen said that it looked as if they had addressed all previously raised issues.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved in Case No. 028-04, at 239 East 100 South, that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the demolition of Spalding Hall and the construction of the addition as represented in the material that was provided by the applicant. Also, the Historic Landmark Commission specified that once the construction of the food bank building is completed, the property owner would make every reasonable effort through signage or otherwise to minimize the impact of the crowds using that facility. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Ms. Carl, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz voted “Aye”. Mr. Ashdown was in a state of recusion. Mr. Fitzsimmons and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Ashdown rejoined the meeting.
Case No. 007-05. at 269 No. “N” Street. by Alex Steckel, requesting approval to construct an addition to the primary house and a single-car garage in the rear yard. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Janice 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.
The following is an overview of the project:
The applicant, Alex Steckel is requesting approval to construct several improvements to the house located at 269 No. “N” Street. The house is located in the Avenues Historic District, which was locally designated as a historic district in March of 1978. The base zoning of the property is SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential, the purpose of which is “to maintain the unique character of older, predominantly single-family neighborhoods that display a variety of yard, lot sizes and bulk characteristics.” The zone allows single family and twin homes as permitted uses.
According to the historic site form completed in 1979, this frame house was built in 1891 for $600 by Martha Smith Adam, the widow of Joseph Adams. The single story gable roofed home has been altered from its original design, first when a rear addition was constructed, and then when a front porch and asbestos shingle siding were added. The 1911 Sanborn Map indicates that the house was probably expanded to the rear sometime before 1911. The front porch with side entrance appears to be a later addition because it does not appear on the 1911 Sanborn Map, but is evident on the attached tax photo. Later, the front porch was enclosed and the house covered with asbestos shingle siding.
Mr. Steckel is now proposing to construct approximately 1,535 additional square feet of space. The south wing addition has been designed such that it is set apart from the historic structure and connected with a smaller linking element. The proposed addition will provide space for a living room, dining area, kitchen, and a master bedroom and bathroom. The applicant intends to re-design the front porch and entrance drawing on the physical evidence provided by the tax photo. The proposed scope of work also includes a re-design of the existing rear additions, removal of the asbestos shingle siding to expose the original beveled wood siding, removal of an existing accessory structure, and construction of a new single car garage. Greater detail on the proposed materials has not yet been submitted. However, the materials chosen for the garage will reflect the material with which the new construction is composed. It is important to note that the applicant was required to make significant changes to the original submittal to address setback issues.
All proposed work must comply with height, yard and bulk requirements of the SR-1 zoning district.
Ms. Lew referred to section 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and the appropriate sections in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:
G. 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:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
Staff's finding of fact: No changes are proposed in the use of the building for residential purposes. The proposed project is consistent with this standard.
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 gabled roof and mostly double-hung windows. These details would remain; it will be the mass of the historic structure that would be altered. The earlier additions to the rear of the historic home would be replaced with an in-line addition that would extend the existing roof form. The enclosed area of what was once a front porch has been incorporated into a new bedroom space. The submitted plans also show a new front entrance as part of a recessed glass breezeway that connects the south wing addition to the historic building.
Recognizing that some exterior alterations to historic buildings are generally needed to assure their continued use, staff finds that these needs cannot be met by restoring the existing rear additions to this building. Such 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. Replacing the earlier rear additions and constructing a south wing are thus viable solutions to maintain the continued use of the residence. The proposed rear addition is in a secondary area of the house, where the Historic Landmark Commission has consistently allowed changes to occur. The proposed contemporary character of the exterior materials will differentiate the addition from the original portion of the house. The design guidelines offer the following guidance on the preservation of character-defining elements.
Design Standards for Additions
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: Replacing the existing additions to the rear of the structure and constructing a south wing as described above will minimize the visual impact on the primary structure and allow the original proportions and character of the historic house to remain prominent. The proposed new construction meets this standard in these areas. Establishing a new entrance that does not convey the same visual appearance, however, will result in additional alterations to the front facade that further diminish the character of the historic structure.
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: Mr. Steckel has placed a new addition to the rear of the historic structure, where it does not affect the building's streetscape appearance. This location will minimize the visual impact on the primary structure, and allow its character defining features to remain prominent. The proposed contemporary materials for the new construction will differentiate the addition from the original portion of the house. These materials should be compatible with the style of the historic building and not seek to imitate an earlier period or inaccurate variation on the historic style. Since the walls of the rear addition are in line with those of the existing structure, Planning Staff recommends, a vertical decorative element be added to further define the transition from old to new construction.
The submitted plans show the south wing addition setback and apart from the historically important primary façade and allows the original proportions and character of the historic property to remain prominent. This massing and the contemporary construction of the south wing addition provide a clear differentiation from the historic portion of the building.
The proposed accessory structure is a single, detached garage simple in design with a flat roof. A variety of roof forms were historically used for garages, including gable, shed and flat roofs. In the Avenues, accessory structures were typically wood structures with a gabled or hipped roof. The existing accessory structure on the site is slated for demolition. The structure is small, in poor condition, and not well suited for contemporary use to provide shelter for today's vehicles. The design guidelines recommend the following with respect to the design of an addition.
Standards for Additions
8.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition shall be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a differentiation between historic and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original building and the addition also may establish a more sound structural design to resist earthquake damage, while helping to define it as a later addition.
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. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the building is inappropriate. An alteration that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the building is inappropriate. In addition, an alteration that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation on the historic style is inappropriate. An alteration that covers historically significant features is inappropriate as well.
Design Standards for Accessory Structures
9.1 Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. When treating a historic accessory building, respect its character-defining features such as primary materials, roof materials, roof form, historic windows, historic doors and architectural details. Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.
9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure. In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not match the house, it is best if does not vary significantly. Allowed materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for the soffits. In the case of a two-car garage two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed.
9.3 Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure. Traditionally, garages were sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. The allowance of attached accessory structures is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Design Standards for the Avenues Historic District
13.7 Construct and locate secondary structures in a manner similar to those seen historically in the district. Most secondary structures were built along the rear of the lot, accessed by the alley, if one existed. This should be continued. Garages, as well as driveways, should not dominate the streetscape; therefore, they should be detached from the main house and located to the rear of the house, if possible. Historically, garages and carriage houses in the Avenues were simple wood structures covered with a gabled or hipped roof. A new secondary structure should follow historic precedent, in terms of materials and form.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed massing, fenestration, and contemporary materials of the new construction differentiate it from the historic portion of the house. Thus, the proposed new construction will be recognizable as a product of its own time. The overall impact of a detached garage on the streetscape would not be substantial given its location to the rear of the lot and visual compatibility with the materials used on the additions.
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Staff's discussion: As discussed above, the house has experienced the typical alterations made to increase the size of smaller historic homes in the past. Although the applicant proposes to replace earlier rear 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 proposed treatment for the front porch and new entrance is less consistent with the design guidelines, and thus the Commission and applicant may wish to consider other options. The front porch with side entrance seems to be a later addition because it does not appear on the 1911 Sanborn Map. Since the porch is evident on the tax photo, it may be considered to have acquired significance in its own right. Entrances and porches should receive sensitive treatment during exterior rehabilitation work because of their historical significance and prominence as character-defining features. Although the historic character of this front porch was compromised when it was later enclosed, this does not appear to be work that could not be reversed and the porch restored based on available pictorial documentation.
Even though the size and shape of facades along a streetscape may vary, the pattern of doors gives scale to buildings and provides visual interest to the composition of individual building facades. Staff finds that relocating the primary entrance to a new recessed breezeway as proposed, would diminish one's ability to read this pattern.
The primary façade and character-defining elements of the historic building as seen from the street will not be negatively affected by the construction of a single-car garage and rear and south wing additions. The design of these additions generally makes use of the basic principles recommended by the City's design guidelines. This helps ensure that the essential form and integrity of the primary façade of the historic building will not be adversely affected by the new construction. The relocation of the front entrance to a recessed glass breezeway, however, may negatively affect the character of the historic house as seen from the street, and thus is inconsistent with this standard.
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Staff's finding of fact: As mentioned above, original siding materials are presently covered and will be exposed once more. The proposed work 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 object.
Staff's discussion: Some of the historic fabric of the front of the building was altered during a more recent remodel. As previously noted, it may be possible to restore the front porch since evidence is available or design an enclosure that preserves the historic character of the porch and utilizes large plates of glass.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed re-design of the front porch is inconsistent with this standard. New elements should match or resemble the original in form and detail.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Staff's finding of fact: Now chemical or physical treatments are proposed as part of this project.
B. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.
Staff's discussion: The contemporary nature of this project is most visible in the window treatment and breezeway design. However, plans are insufficient for staff to fully evaluate the compatibility of the proposed alterations with respect to size, scale, material and character of the property and neighborhood. The design guidelines offer the following guidance for compatible designs.
Design Standards for Additions
8.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Setback an addition from historically important primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Keep the addition visually subordinate to the historic building. If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than the historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a “connector” to link it.
8.5 Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building. For example, if the building historically had a horizontal emphasis, this orientation shall be continued in the addition.
8.8 Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition. Painted wood clapboard and brick are typical of many traditional additions. See a/so the discussion of specific building types and styles.
B.10 Use windows in the addition that are similar in character to those of the historic building or structure. If the historic windows are wood, double-hung for example, new windows should appear to be similar to them. Depending on the detailing, clad wood or synthetic materials may be considered.
Design Standards for the Avenues Historic District
13.9 Use primary materials on a building that are similar to those use historically. Appropriate building materials include: brick, stucco, and wood. Building in brick, in sizes and colors similar to those used historically, is preferred. Jumbo, or oversized brick is inappropriate. Using stone, or veneers applied with the bedding plane in a vertical position, is inappropriate. Stucco should appear similar to that used historically. Using panelized products in a manner that reveals large panel modules is inappropriate. In general, panelized and synthetic materials are inappropriate for primary structures. They may be considered on secondary buildings.
Staff's finding of fact: The plans do not show sufficient detail for staff to fully evaluate the compatibility of the proposed alterations with respect to size, scale, material and character of the property and neighborhood. Details important to Historic Landmark Commission review of this project include fully dimensioned and labeled construction drawings drawn to scale with size and profile of windows, detailing of the doors and a wall section. Given that the massing of the building has been divided into smaller components, the house form fits into the overall character of the neighborhood.
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 additions are large in relation to the existing building footprint, the mass of the South wing and rear addition are subordinate to the original portion of the house. The massing of the new construction will help make the addition distinguishable from the original portion of the building. The gabled roof of the south wing is similar in shape and scale to the existing roof structure and to those found historically in the neighborhood. However, greater detail is needed to fully evaluate the new materials and fenestration.
The Design Guidelines offer the following guidance for constructing new additions: Design Standards for Additions
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. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
8.7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some rooflines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition shall not be places in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.
8.9 Minimize negative technical effects to original features when designing an addition. Avoid construction methods, for example that would cause vibration that may damage historic foundations. New alterations also should be designed in such a way that they can be removed without destroying original materials or features.
Ground Level Additions
8.14 Keep a new addition physically and visually subordinate to the historic building. The addition shall be setback significantly from primary facades. A minimum setback of 10 feet is recommended. The addition should be consistent with the scale and character of the historic building or structure. Large additions should be separated from the historic building by using a smaller connecting element to link the two.
8.15 Roof forms shall be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate.
8.16 On primary facades of an addition, use a solid-to-void ratio that is similar to that of the historic building. The solid-to-void ratio is the relative percentage of wall to windows and doors seen on a facade.
Staff's finding of fact: The primary façade and character-defining elements of the historic building as seen from the street will not be negatively affected by the proposed new construction. The design of the additions 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 work. 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 will be discernable from the old and it would be possible, although not likely, to remove the additions. The proposed project generally complies with this standard.
10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following:
a. Vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and
b. Any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials.
Staff's finding of fact: No prohibited building materials are proposed.
11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H historic preservation overlay district, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs.
Staff's finding of fact: Signage is not a component of this project.
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 offered the following staff’s recommendation: “Based upon the above analysis, the Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the application requesting approval to construct an addition and garage to the existing house at 269 No. 'N' Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval of the final details of the design of the proposed project, including materials, entrance and porch treatment, and window and door treatment, shall be delegated to the Planning Staff based upon direction given during the hearing from the Historic Landmark Commission; 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, is should adopt findings supported by substantial evidence.”
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff.
Mr. Parvaz said that two options have been presented for this proposal. He wanted to know which one the applicant was proposing. Ms. Lew said that there are differences in the plans. She added that Option No.2 was the latest plans submitted.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Alex Steckel, the applicant, as well as his architect, Mr. Ken Pollard of Pace Pollard Architects, were present. Mr. Pollard pointed out that the two plans show different entrances. He said that the applicant preferred Option No. 2 which would be the same entry as the original cottage had. He referred to an historic photograph and said that the front porch was enclosed with a screen and the applicant wanted to take the asbestos off and enclose the porch with glass and screening.
Mr. Steckel said that presently the rear addition is built on dirt with no foundation. He said that it was his intent to reconstruct the addition on a firm foundation and detail it similarly to its 1936 origin.
Mr. Pollard stated that there had been many alterations to the small cottage. He said that the new plans show that the new entry would open into a breezeway between the original cottage and the new addition on the south. Mr. Pollard noted that the proposed addition would be almost identical in scale and massing as the original cottage but shifted back. He added that the landscaping would be blended in the front. Mr. Pollard said that the original cottage would stand apart from the new addition with materials, clearly showing what was old and what would be new. He referred to the case study from Chevy Chase, Maryland, that accompanied the staff report. Mr. Pollard stated that it would be a kind of replication. He added that the project would infuse the neighborhood with some articulation of scale and massing but at the same time give a new interpretation to the structure.
Mr. Simonsen asked the applicant if he had a copy of the alternate plan because it was not included in the staff report. Mr. Pollard apologized and said that he was not aware that the Commissioners and staff had not received the alternate plan.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by pointing out that the site plans did not match the elevation drawings and referred to the groups of windows. Mr. Pollard stated that after talking to staff the amount of windows seemed to be a concern, making it look too modern. He indicated that since the building is horizontal, the applicant was subtly changing the massing and articulation of the windows by making them vertical in the new addition. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the material of the chimney stack. Mr. Pollard said that it would be aluminum painted black to correspond with the color of the asphalt shingles. He added that the chimney element would be very simple protruding through the ceiling. Mr. Steckel also displayed a cross section of a metal clad window he planned to use. Mr. Parvaz asked if the applicant planned to change the windows in the existing structure. Mr. Steckel said that he would because the present windows are vinyl. Mr. Steckel noted that the house is so small that there are only two or three windows in the entire building.
• Mr. Simonsen said that in Option No. 2, it looked as if there was a section of the structure that would actually be cantilevered. Mr. Pollard said that was correct to get the maximum space on the interior. He added that landscaping would be installed underneath the cantilevered section. Mr. Pollard said that because the new driveway would be so close to the house, there was a possibility to bring the cantilevered section in another two or three feet.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked what would be the distance from the corner of the porch to the front door. Mr. Pollard said that it would probably be eighteen feet or less, which would be covered. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that the new addition would be nine feet back and Mr. Steckel said that was correct. Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the design of the new front door. Mr. Pollard said that it would be wood and glass.
• Mr. Christensen commented on the support post on the front porch. He inquired if there would be a series of support posts on the front porch. Mr. Pollard said that the series would be there for the screening or mullions, as well as for the new addition. Mr. Christensen also expressed concern that vehicles would be parked in the driveway rather than in the garage because of the length of the driveway. Mr. Pollard said that his driveway is very long and he has learned to handle it very well. He noted that the garage would be in the most efficient location on the site to provide privacy for the courtyards in the back. Mr. Pollard said that it is a nice parcel of land. Mr. Christensen said that the reality of that long of driveway would be that you would drive barely in the driveway and park by the front door which would beg for a south entrance on the addition.
• When Mr. Parvaz asked about the siding, Mr. Steckel displayed a sample of a product that he had thought about using. He mentioned that the company makes other products with different profiles. Mr. Simonsen asked about the grain. Mr. Steckel said that the company no longer makes a product with a smooth surface. Mr. Pollard said that the applicant proposed painting the material with a light color. Mr. Steckel said that he planned to restore the original siding on the existing building when the asbestos is removed. He added that he knows there would have to be repair work done on places that would be damaged. Mr. Christensen inquired if the applicant had thought of having new siding milled for the new addition that would match the original siding once it is exposed. Mr. Steckel said that he wanted to differentiate between the old and the new so he thought it would be better to have something that did not match it exactly. However, he said that he would look into that possibility and perhaps have some additional milled for the repair work to the damaged places. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the Commission had not generally allowed this type of texture for synthetic material on historic structures. He added that there were other manufacturers that make similar kinds of product that has a smooth finish. Mr. Steckel said that he would pursue this matter with Mr. Pollard. Mr. Simonsen that that there were many ways to distinguish the old from the new such as with windows and variations in fenestration and so forth.
• Ms. Mickelsen commented on the design of the roof in the back. Mr. Pollard said that the gable would be continued to add a bedroom. He pointed out the error on the floor plan calling one bedroom a bathroom. Mr. Pollard said that the front walkway would be stone answering Ms. Mickelsen's question. He continued by saying that the garage would have a flat roof, but the materials and details would be the same as the new addition; there would also be a main door, but no windows. Mr. Parvaz noted that the elevation of the garage would be much lower than the new addition. Mr. Pollard said that would be due to the four and one-half feet grade difference.
• Ms. Heid asked about the depth of the lot. Mr. Steckel said that it was about 165 feet.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no comments 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. Christensen said that he thought the project was a creative solution for an addition to a small home. He noted that there were a number of things that were uncertain with the proposal. Mr. Christensen pointed out that the elevation drawings, the site plans, and the floor plan did not match. He added that some of the differences were major defining elements, such as the fenestration on the front windows. Mr. Christensen also suggested a shallow pitched roof for the garage rather than a flat roof.
In response to Ms. Mickelsen's question, Ms. Lew said that there were a variety of roof pitches on garages in the Avenues, including flat roofs. She said that the roofline does not need to match the house, according to the guidelines.
Mr. Ashdown said that he agreed with Mr. Christensen. He thought the floor plan was a big issue.
A discussion took place as the Commission discussed matters relating to the project.
Mr. Ashdown brought out the fact that the architect said that the plans were drawn quickly to meet staffs time frame. He asked why the plans were rushed. Mr. LoPiccolo said that an application was submitted and then the applicant conferred with Mr. Pollard and changed gears; they went a different direction. He said that the case had already been tentatively scheduled for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
A question was asked that if the hearing was continued, would the architect have time to address the issues that had been discussed and also give the applicant time to find other examples of siding. It was the consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting for additional questions for the applicant. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting and conferred with Mr. Steckel regarding doing some additional work to clarify these issues.
Mr. Steckel stated that he was under a time crunch. He said that he was sympathetic to some of the Commission's concerns. He said that he knew there were discrepancies between the drawings and the floor plan. Mr. Steckel asked if the Historic Landmark Commission would approve the proposal contingent upon addressing the discussed issues and giving staff final approval rights.
Mr. Pollard said that the reason why the applicant chose to have a flat roof was to deter from having a series of gables in the front.
Since there were no additional questions for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen reclosed the meeting and returned to the executive session portion of the meeting.
The discussion continued as the Commission reiterated the points of discrepancies in the plans and the lack of information in the materials and in the details on the renderings.
Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 007-05 at 269 No. “N” Street, that the Historic Landmark Commission accepts the plans contingent upon staff approval of the following: 1} materials for the siding, which should be smooth, both the restoration and the addition; 2) that the fenestration should be based on the presented elevations and that the floor plan match those elevations; 3) the design and material for the front door; 4) the location of the proposed entrance and glassed in breezeway; 5) the design and material for the front door; and 6) details of the columns in front. Also, as far as the roof pitch of the garage, a flat roof would be acceptable. Ms. Carl seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen was opposed. Mr. Fitzsimmons and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
It is noted that the Historic Landmark Commission members and staff discussed the language of the motion and other matters prior to voting on the motion.
Case No. 008-05. at 304 E. First Avenue. by Bruce Markosian. requesting approval to replace an existing garage with a new single-car garage using honed concrete block as the building materials. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Sarah Carroll 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.
The following is an overview of the project:
Bruce Markosian, owner of the dwelling located at 304 East First Avenue, is requesting approval to replace an existing garage on his property. The subject property is on a corner lot abutting property owned by First Presbyterian Church. The site proposed for the garage is barely visible from C Street. It is readily visible from First Avenue because of the void in the streetscape caused by the proximity of the abutting parking lot and day care playground. Mr. Markosian has proposed honed concrete block as the building material for the new structure. Staff is referring this application for a full Commission review because the proposed building material is not listed in the Design Guidelines for R 9sidential historic Districts, and staff determined that concrete block is not a compatible building material for an accessory structure on a site easily seen from the street in the Avenues Historic District. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District, and is zoned RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District.
The site/survey Historic Site form indicates that the primary structure was constructed in 1896-1897 as a single family dwelling. It was converted to apartments in 1925 and has been used as a rental property since that time. The primary structure is a two-story Victorian eclectic home on a corner lot. The Survey form notes that it has a hip roof that recalls Chateausque style architecture, and is notable as the home of James Talmage, a prominent L.D.S. scholar, geologist and President of the University of Utah. Mr. Markosian has proposed to replace the garage at this site with a new garage that is 400 square feet. It is not known when the existing garage was constructed. The City allows accessory structures in the historic district as long as the proposed accessory structure meets the design guidelines for this district and the requirements for the underlying zone.
The procedure for Issuance of Certificate of Appropriateness was included in the staff report. Based upon the criteria established by the Historic Landmark Commission for administrative approvals, staff denied the request to approve the use of concrete block as not meeting the adopted criteria in the design guidelines and referred the request to the full Commission.
In considering the proposed accessory garage, the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based on the following sections of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:
21A.34.020(H) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure: In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or Planning Director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the historic landmark commission and city council and is in the best interest of the city:
1. Scale and Form:
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Design Guideline 9.3: Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure. Traditionally, garages were sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained.
Staff's discussion: The garage is approximately 16'-4” high and only 400 square feet in size. The garage proportions are subordinate to the primary structure. The size and mass of the proposed garage is compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape. The scale of the garage is smaller than many other garages that have been approved by the HLC and the Planning Division staff. The proposed garage has a pitched roof while the primary structure has a hip roof. However, this is not viewed as a competing shape, as historically garage roof profiles did not correspond to the roof shape of the primary structure. The proposed garage is not attached to the primary structure and is at the rear of the lot.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with these standards and design guidelines.
2. Composition of Principal Facades:
a. Proportion of Openings: The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades: The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections: The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials: The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Design Guideline 9.2: In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for the soffits.
Staff's discussion: A single window is proposed for the gable end; the applicant proposes a wood garage door on the north elevation and a metal door for the man door on the west elevation. The proportions of the openings and the rhythm of solids and voids of the proposed garage correspond to those typically seen on historic structures. A small covered area on the west elevation is proposed for a patio area. Staff has determined that the proposed garage meets standards 21A.34.020(H)(2) (a), (b) and (c).
Staff has determined that the proposed garage does not meet 21A.34.020(H)(2) (d) or Design Guideline
9.2. Although the accessory garage is located behind the house, it is visible from First Avenue and from neighboring properties. The applicant has proposed honed concrete block as the building material for the new garage. The size of concrete block is 8” tall by 16” wide, double the size of a standard brick, and is not listed in the design guidelines. The applicant has proposed this material in order to better meet the required fire rating, to ease the difficulty of constructing just one foot from a retaining wall on the property line, to provide a material that will accept wall climbing vines, and to reduce the amount of maintenance that other materials would require. Please refer to the applicants “Arguments for Use of Concrete Block” found on the elevation drawings. (Exhibit C).
Staff's finding of fact: The new garage will be located in the exact location as the existing garage. Staff recommends approval for the replacement of the garage and finds that the proposal meets 21A.34.020(H)(2) (a), (b), and (c). Staff does not recommend approving concrete block as the building material and finds that the applicant does not meet 21A.34.020(H)(2) {d) and Design Guideline 9.2. The materials used on the principal building are a buff colored, standard size brick and wood shingle siding. Due to the large size and coarseness of concrete block staff finds that the proposed material is not compatible with the materials used on the principal structure and is not compatible with other materials typically found in the historic district.
3. Relationship to Street:
a. Walls of Continuity: Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets: The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation: A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements: Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The proposed garage is setback from the street, detached from the primary structure, and its siting is consistent with the placement of accessory structures in pre World War II neighborhoods of Salt Lake City. The relationship to the street of the proposed garage is consistent with land use development in the Avenues Historic District. The applicant meets this standard.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: No subdivision is proposed, thus this standard does not apply.
Ms. Carroll offered the following staff's recommendation: “Based on the discussion and finding, that concrete block is not a material that is characteristic of the Historic District and would compete with the materials used on the principal structure, staff recommends denial of the use of this material. Staff is in favor of the reconstruction of the dilapidated garage, but recommends that the applicant propose a siding material that matches the principal dwelling.”
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for staff.
Mr. Parvaz clarified that staff did not object to the use of concrete blocks; it was the finish. He asked if the concrete blocks were faced with stucco or some other appropriate material, it would meet the standards. Ms. Carroll said that staff's concern is the size of the block. Mr. Parvaz expressed his concern that staff's finding referred to concrete block not being an appropriate compatible material to an historic structure as a secondary building. Ms. Carroll pointed out that the applicant wanted the block to be the final finish and did not propose any other material. She suggested discussing this matter with the applicant. Ms. Coffey concurred with staff's findings and recommendation.
Mr. Simonsen believed the issue was the compatibility of a secondary structure with the primary structure on the site, which is an historic building. He mentioned that there have been many new commercial structures in the Central City Historic District on 400 South that has been approved with concrete block.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments of staff, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Bruce Markosian, the applicant, was present. He displayed a sample of the concrete block he proposed to use. Mr. Markosian said that when he first met with staff, it was suggested that he stucco over the concrete blocks. He said that he did not want to go to that much expense for a single-car garage. Mr. Markosian said that he liked the material and did not understand why the material was objectionable.
Mr. Markosian described the property by saying that there is asphalt to the property line, no landscaping, a playground, and a parking lot adjacent to the garage. He wondered what the historical context of this garage was. Mr. Markosian said that he wanted something maintenance free because two of the facades were difficult to reach. He said, “Making an issue to charm it up and turn it into a little doll house is ridiculous.” Mr. Markosian said that he could get a color that would be compatible with the house. He indicated that his intent was to install irrigation, plant vines, and encourage their growth over the garage. Mr. Markosian continued to discuss the proposed project.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by stating that the applicant has a nice house with much character and the material for the garage should be compatible to the house. Mr. Markosian said that staff reported the material as being course. He believed that the scale and material would be compatible with the sandstone retaining walls and the church building adjacent to his property. Mr. Markosian said that he did not believe that the Historic Landmark Commission would have a legitimate reason not to allow the proposed material.
• Mr. Ashdown explained the possibility of a neighbor wanting to use concrete block to build a house, if the applicant was allowed this use. He said that setting a precedent was an important factor in the entire historic neighborhood. Mr. Markosian said that building a house is another matter, but the garage would be tucked back in a corner of the property. Mr. Ashdown said that it still would be visible from the street.
There was further discussion about using another material on the exterior. Mr. Markosian was amenable to using a different material on the front. He mentioned that the upper exterior of his house was sided with shingles. Mr. Markosian again expressed concern about the additional cost and the small space in which to work.
Since the Commission had no additional 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 comments 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.
The discussion continued. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the Commission, such as:
Mr. Simonsen was concerned with the nature of an outbuilding. Historically, outbuildings have been a utilitarian-type of structure. Would the concrete block material be compatible with the buildings in the neighborhood that were constructed out of large blocks of sandstone? The secondary structure on the property should not compete with the primary structure.
Mr. Ashdown mentioned the exploration of the use of concrete block on garages in the Avenues area. Have staff research to find out if the Commission had approved this material on any other outbuildings in the Avenues.
Ms. Carl observed that some structures could look shabby, even if a more appropriate material was used. It was more the quality of the workmanship. Consider the maintenance of the building.
Mr. Parvaz stated that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City does not specify that concrete masonry unit (CMU) is an allowable material. He was concerned about setting precedence. The Commission would have to make a logical decision because the issue may come up again.
Mr. Christensen said that colored cement block reads as a very contemporary building. In the 1920s, there were factories in Utah producing an earlier version of CMU. The blocks had a front finish, which was exposed for visibility that looked like stone. Mr. Christensen made an observation of older garages in the Rose Park area constructed out of cement block where the front facades were faced with the same brick veneer as the houses. He rather liked the look of the materials as they aged.
Ms. Mickelsen said that she did not think the contention was that the material was not a historic material but the use of the material in the historic district.
Ms. Coffey suggested that it was important for the Commission to focus on the design guidelines. If the Commission makes the decision to approve the material, comprehensive findings have to be made tying the decision to this case, so a precedent would not be set for future construction in the district. Also, economics should not be an issue for the Commission to consider.
Mr. Simonsen pointed out Standard No. 2 of the ordinance, Composition of Principal Facades and the relationship of materials- the relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than point color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape; as well as Standard No. 9.2 of the design guidelines, Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure - in general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house ...allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco ...vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for the soffits.
The discussion continued with some members of the Commission making suggestions of ways the cement block could work and the use of other materials.
Mr. Ashdown stated that there seemed to be a conflict in the staff report that CMU had not been used in the Avenues. Some members of the Commission believe that there may be cases where the material was used for older structures. He inquired if staff could research the Avenues to find out if the material had been used on other secondary structures.
Ms. Coffey said that a study could be done and the results could be given at the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
Motion.
Mr. Ashdown moved to table Case No. 008-05 pending staff research to find similar structures or outbuildings in the Avenues constructed out of CMU (concrete masonry unit}, and whether or not CMU has been approved previously by the Historic Landmark Commission for any purpose. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted “Aye”. Mr. Fitzsimmons and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
After some discussion, Mr. Simonsen stated as a point of order that this case would be continued at the next regularly scheduled meeting.
Mr. Simonsen announced that the Historic Landmark Commission would take a five-minute recess at 6:05 P.M. He reconvened the meeting at 6:10 P.M.
Case No. 009-05, at 405 So. Main Street. a presentation by Korral Broschinsky of Preservation Document Resources. to solicit comments for listing the “First Security Bank Building” at this address on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Simonsen excused Ms. Giraud because she had to leave. He referred to her memorandum regarding the First Security Bank Building, which stated that the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) had requested input from the Historic Landmark Commission for National Register of Historic Places within Salt Lake City's boundaries. The input is provided to the Board of State History, which votes on the nominations. The nominations are then sent to the National Park Service, the federal organization responsible for the National Register. Ms. Giraud's memorandum also referred to an article that she wrote for the Utah Preservation magazine that discussed the significance of the First Security Bank Building. A copy of which was filed with the minutes
Ms. Korral Broschinsky, consultant, introduced herself and stated that she had prepared the nomination for both buildings being reviewed at this meeting, the “First Security Bank Building” and the 'W. P. Fuller Paint Company Office and Warehouse”.
Ms. Broschinsky said that she was pleased to present both building nominations in the same meeting because they share some similar history, not just being a few blocks away from each other on 400 South, but both buildings for their time were very innovative and very different in the Salt Lake City skyline; in their time they were the “wow” buildings. She said that both experienced a period of decline and were called “eyesores” and discussions were held about being torn down. Ms. Broschinsky added that the result of the recent rehabilitations both buildings are both back to the “wow” buildings.
Mr. Christensen excused himself and left the meeting at 6:27 P.M.
Ms. Broschinsky gave a narrative description of the property along with her slide presentation:
The First Security Bank Building is a twelve-story steel and glass bank and office tower. The Utah Construction Company, a subsidiary of the First Security Corporation, constructed the building between 1954 and 1955. The building was a collaboration of architects W. A. Sarmiento and W.G. Knoebel, of the Bank Building and Equipment Company of St. Louis. The commercial building is Utah's finest example of the modernist movement's International Style. The building has four main volumes expressed distinctly on the exterior: the main and second floor banking spaces, the office tower, an elevator-service shaft, and a three story annex to the south. The building is constructed of a steel frame on a concrete foundation, and had a flat built-up roof.
The curtain wall skin consists of a combination of glass, steel, aluminum, and porcelain enameled steel panels. A non-contributing concrete-frame parking garage, built in 1972, is located to the southeast of the bank building on the 1.89-acre lot. The parking structure is totally separate from the bank building and is not included in the nomination. The exterior and most of the interior was rehabilitated in 2004 as a federal historic preservation tax credit project.
The main floor features floor-to-ceiling glass set in aluminum sash dividing the openings with a transom above each large glass plate. There is a double-door full-glass entrance at the east end of the north elevation. Modifications to the storefront include the subdivision of the glass with newer aluminum mullions and the addition of a recessed entrance in the center of the north elevation (both probably in the 1970s). The glass street front wraps along the west elevation to connect with the main floor of the elevator block where a lobby and access to the three public elevators is located. There is another double glass door entering this lobby from the west elevation. The doors are original. The storefront glass is accented by burnished stainless steel panels, which appear as bulkheads. The stainless steel panels also cover the structural columns where visible. The east elevation of the main floor is sheathed with porcelain enamel over steel. The porcelain enamels panels are square, fluted and rust colored. The elevation was originally blank, but a teller window and canopy (for the drive-through banking) was added to the east in 1974. The south elevation is mostly obscured by the annex, although there is a service entrance at the southeast corner. The second floor originally featured an unsheltered balcony with a quarry tile floor, but it has been enclosed, probably in the early 1970s. There is no landscaping around the building.
The history of the First Security Bank Building begins with the David and Ellen Stoddard Eccles family. After his father's death, Marriner S. Eccles, the oldest son, took over the leadership of most of his father's businesses. He and his brother, George, and others organized the First Security Corporation as a holding company with seventeen banks.
The building was dedicated on August 22, 1955. Marriner and George Eccles were both on hand, as well as a number of local dignitaries. The building was considered an artistic and economic success.
As the only International Style commercial building in the downtown areas, the First Security Bank Building is a distinctive part of the city's commercial district skyline and contributes to the historic resources of Salt Lake City.
Ms. Broschinsky introduced Mr. John Dahlstrom, one of the owners of the First Security Bank Building.
Mr. Ashdown asked if the owner had plans to change the sign. Mr. Dahlstrom said that he did not own the rights of the name. He added that on June 1, 2005 there would be an announced of the new tenant. Mr. Ashdown asked if the new sign would be the same with a new name. Mr. Dahlstrom said that the City does not allow double-decker signs any more but the sign would be placed as high as the existing sign.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the First Security Bank sign was a part of the historic fabric of the building. Ms. Broschinsky said that it was but the name on the sign can be changed. Mr. Dahlstrom said that the new sign has to be the same kind, such as open panel. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the colors on the building were the original colors. Mr. Dahlstrom said that the original colors were very similar to the colors on the restored building, but had not been treated for fifty years so the colors had faded and changed. Mr. Dahlstrom indicated that the windows in the building had been replaced and the old ones had a blue tint to them.
Mr. Parvaz was curious when Ms. Broschinsky said that both of the buildings had used the tax credits before they were nominated for the National Register. Ms. Broschinsky said that the requirements to receive the 20°/o federal tax credit is that the building be listed on the National Register, but it does not have to be listed prior to the work beginning; in fact they have a three-year window when they start the project. She explained the tax credit program. In answer to Mr. Parvaz's question, Ms. Broschinsky said she thought this was the youngest building listed on the National Register; it barely squeaked by. She also said that she rarely had seen the interest that this building has had in its restoration. Ms. Broschinsky said that the Salt Lake Tribune had followed the restoration with updates and photographs.
Mr. Dahlstrom said that the tax credit program was only one of many reasons why he decided to purchase and restore the building. He said that the restoration cost $12 Million. Mr. Dahlstrom explained that the annex, which houses the Eagle Gate College, was part of the original building. He continued to discuss the restoration of the building.
Since there were no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion.
Motion:
Ms. Carl moved for Case No. 009-05 that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the First Security Bank Building at 405 So. Main Street on the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Heid seconded the nomination. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
No. 010-05. at 404 West 400 South. a presentation by Korral Broschinsky of Preservation Document Resources. to solicit comments for listing the “W. P. Fuller Paint Company Office and Warehouse” at this address on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Simonsen referred to Ms. Giraud's memorandum regarding the W.P. Fuller Paint Company Office and Warehouse, which stated that the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) had requested input from the Historic Landmark Commission for National Register of Historic Places within Salt Lake City's boundaries. The input is provided to the Board of State History, which votes on the nominations. The nominations are then sent to the National Park Service, the federal organization responsible for the National Register.
Ms. Korral Broschinsky, consultant, gave a narrative description of the property along with her slide presentation:
In 1921, William Parmer Fuller purchased the property from the heirs of Henry Reiser. A building permit for the construction was issued in 1922. No architect was listed. The design for the concrete frame and curtain wall construction probably originated at the national offices of the W.P. Fuller Company in San Francisco, but was executed by local contractors, John F. Schraven and his son Henry E. Schraven.
The W.P. Fuller Paint Company Office and Warehouse is historically and architecturally significant for its association with the twentieth-century development of Salt Lake City's west side railroad and industrial district. The Fuller building was a transitional building designed to accommodate both rail traffic and trucking. The formed concrete support columns were innovative engineering for Salt Lake City of the period, and modest Art Deco details were an early manifestation of the style, especially in such a utilitarian structure.
The W.P. Fuller Paint Company Office and Warehouse, built in 1922, is a four-story reinforced concrete commercial block. The building is a concrete frame structure covered in painted stucco. The building has four stories of office and warehouse space with a full basement. The interior is lit with multi-light warehouse windows. The roof is flat and built-up with a three-story tower at the southeast corner.
The sign band found just under the parapet coping, originally read “W. P. Fuller & Co.” now reads “Big-D” on the south and east elevations, and “Big-D Construction” on the west elevation. The Art Deco details are found mostly on the tower, where the pilasters are six stories high and decorated with tile and paint in diamond-shaped patterns. The painted date 1922 is found in the center of the large central diamonds.
On the interior, the building has approximately 69,600 square feet of space divided between the floors. The most dramatic change to the interior has been the addition of a full-height atrium cut through the three main floors in the three center bays. A skylight monitor was added to the roof to provide daylight to the atrium space. An open stair, constructed of steel and glass, was built in the atrium space.
A rehabilitation and adaptive re-use of the building was completed in December 2004 as a federal tax credit project. The new owner, the Big-D Construction Company, has rehabilitated the Fuller Paint Building for use as office space.
Ms. Mickelsen said that it seemed like the Historic Landmark Commission had already nominated this building to the National Register. It was determined that in July of 2004, the building was nominated to the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, but the owners withdrew the nomination.
A short discussion followed the presentation. Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 010-05 that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Preservation Office (SHPO) to include the W. P. Fuller Paint Company Office and Warehouse at 404 West 400 South on the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Heid seconded the nomination. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Simonsen thanked Ms. Broschinsky for the excellent presentation of the two buildings.
OTHER BUSINESS
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. Ashdown seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:45P.M.