SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LAI'JDMARK 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, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, and Amy Rowland. Scott Christensen and Soren Simonsen were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She 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, Ms. Mickelsen asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes from the August 21, 2002 meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Heid moved to approve the minutes from the September 4, 2002 meeting. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Mr. Littig abstained. Mr. Christensen and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Ms. Mickelsen 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. Mark Dollase introduced himself as the new director of the Utah Heritage Foundation. Mr. Dollase said that previous to coming to Utah, he worked with a statewide preservation organization, called the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, which is a private foundation, with an endowment fund of about $35,000,000. He said that his educational background is an undergraduate degree in history and a master's degree in historic preservation. Mr. Dollase said that it was a "very exciting opportunity to come to Utah and become involved with the Utah Heritage Foundation which is a great organization".
There were no other public comments to the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 025-02, at 922 South 700 East in Liberty Park, by Salt Lake City Corporation. requesting approval of exterior alterations to the former boxing building which is being renovated to house a new Youth City Center. Liberty Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
This case was postponed at the request of the applicant.
Case No. 029-02, a request by Tracy Aviary, represented by Cooper Roberts Simonsen Architects. for exterior rehabilitation and site improvements at the Chase Mill in the southwest quadrant of Liberty Park. which is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
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 Commission was requested to review a new proposal to seismically upgrade and adaptively reuse the Chase Mill as a meeting space and administrative offices for Tracy Aviary. He said that in addition, the applicants propose re-exposing the basement wall and constructing a new performance space on the west side of the building. Mr. Knight indicated that the Chase Mill is individually listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. The park is zoned OS-Open Space, the purpose of which is to preserve and protect areas of public and private open space and exert a greater level of control over any potential redevelopment of existing open space areas.
Mr. Knight stated that the architect for this project, Mr. Allen Roberts, authored a study on the mill in 1980 that supplied the historical background in this staff report.
Mr. Knight presented the following background information: Liberty Park sits on land that was originally on the outskirts of Salt Lake City. The land was subdivided in the "Big Field" survey of 1847, which distributed farming plots to the first settlers of the Salt Lake Valley. Isaac Chase was the first owner of this plot of land. He built his house and a complex of buildings that included a sawmill and a wood framed gristmill. He built the present mill between 1852 and 1854. Frederick Kessler, who designed many mills in early Utah, designed the mill building and machinery. The building is a timber-frame structure, with a Red Butte sandstone foundation and adobe walls. The building was originally three stories, but re-grading of the site covered the basement level by about 1920.
Brigham Young was a partner in the venture with Chase. He obtained full title to the property from Isaac Chase in 1860, in exchange for property in Centerville. Brigham Young, Jr. took over operation of the mill for his father and moved his family to the mill property.
The millpond, which is the present pond in the park, had a nearby spring and Emigration Creek as its supply, did not provide the steady stream of fast moving water of which other mills in the valley took advantage. This, combined with the arrival of improved mill technology, prompted the closure of the mill by 1880. Young's estate sold the land to Salt Lake City for development of a city park in 1881. The mill was converted into a stable, and later served as shops for the Parks Department.
In 1898, the building's condition had deteriorated to the point that the City Council solicited bids for its demolition. A groundswell of public opposition, led by the Chase family, rose to oppose the demolition. The City Council relented, and instead of allocating funds for the demolition, the Council paid for renovation of the building. The metal "BY" and "1852" on the north and south gables of the mill were installed during this time in recognition of the mill's construction date and its association with Brigham Young. This was the first of several restoration projects that the building was to undergo.
In the 1920s, half timbering was added to the exterior of the building in an attempt to make the building conform to current tastes. Ivy was also planted around the perimeter of the mill, which later contributed to the deterioration of the building's adobe walls. Later in the decade, when the wall deterioration became more apparent, the entire building was stuccoed in an attempt to prevent further damage.
In 1933, the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers (DUP) leased the building from the City. The DUP operated the building as a historic site and relic hall for the next several decades. In 1957, architects for the DUP proposed restoring the mill to its original function. Surplus equipment from other mills was obtained for use in the reconstruction. This equipment was still in the building until recently. The plan was never realized.
In 1977, workers under the direction of Dr. Steven Baird reconstructed the exterior of the building and structurally reinforced the timer frame. As part of this work, all of the exterior materials, doors, windows, roof shingles, and siding, and the adobe walls, were replaced with new material. The adobe was replaced with "faux adobe" blocks (actually concrete blocks). The interior whythes of adobe were not replaced and remain original.
Mr. Knight said that Friends of Tracy Aviary are raising the money for the renovation of the Chase Mill.
The following is a description of the applicant's proposal: The applicants proposed work to upgrade the seismic strength of the building, put the building back into active public use, and reverse some of the inappropriate changes that have been made to the building as part of previous projects. The exterior work would include: 1) Re-exposing, the lower level of the building on the west side. Two door openings that were formerly filled in would be re-opened and new doors installed; 2) Construction of a new stepped concrete performance space on the west side of the building, with the newly exposed basement wall as its backdrop; 3) Refurbishment of existing doors and windows and, in a few instances, replacement. Two former window openings that were converted to doorways will be restored; 4) Removal of existing shingles and sheathing and replacing them with new material to match historic appearance; 5) Installation of new mechanical equipment on the north side of the building. The equipment will be partly hidden below grade; and 6) Re grading and re-landscaping the surrounding site. As a bid alternate, the adjacent, out-ofperiod aviary amphitheater may be removed, along with the tube slides in the nearby Children's Garden. The site would be re-landscaped with lawn.
Mr. Knight referred to the following standards in Section 21A.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. Mr. Knight stated that Staff believed the following standards applied to this project:
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;
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: The mill is being adaptively reused for public meeting space and administrative offices for the Aviary. The use will require minimal changes to the exterior appearance of the mill and the surrounding park.
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;
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: All remaining historic elements of the building will be retained. Some work, such as replacing two existing doors with windows, will return the building to a more historic appearance.
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;
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: The architects have not attempted to replicate missing elements, such as mill machinery or landscape features, which do not have strong historic evidence of their original appearance. Examples of this are the French doors proposed for the west side of the building. Physical evidence on the inside of the building indicates the size and location of the doors, but no such evidence of their exact design exists. Instead of installing a door design that might have been used, the architects have selected a door that would not have been used on a mill building, but is compatible with the overall design. The application complies with this standard. No architectural elements that are conjectural or could create a false sense of history have been proposed.
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;
Staff's discussion and findings of fact: Although the grade on the west side of the building was raised to cover the basement well within the historic period, Staff is not of the opinion that the proposed grade lowering would remove an alteration that has become significant in its own right. Exposing the west wall will give an indication of the original size of the building, and will allow the basement level, which was where much of the mill machinery was originally located, to be put to public use. The application complies with this standard. No architectural or landscape elements that have acquired their own significance will be removed.
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;
Staff's discussion and findings of fact: The distinctive elements of the building, such as the wood sunburst on each gable, the metal lettering, and the monitor windows atop the roof structure, which was a signature of the mill designer, will be retained and repaired.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall 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;
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: Although much of the building's exterior historic material was removed during its 1977 renovation, the proposed work will preserve the remaining historic material and retain the replacement material that is in keeping with the original appearance of the mill.
8. 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 and findings of fact: The proposed performance space on the west side of the mill is simple in design, and neutral in color and finish. The size of the space is proportionate to the mill's exterior dimensions. Architectural elements required by the building code, such as handrails, are simple in design and neutral in color. This allows these elements to fade into the background visually, focusing attention on to more visually prominent historic elements, such as the sandstone foundation wall of the building. This approach has been used many times in the historic landscape of Liberty Park, such as with similar metal railings at the Chase House, or with earth-toned playground equipment. Landscape elements such as light poles and walks will be in keeping with approved designs for similar work in the park. The application provides for possible discovery of archaeological material by requiring the contractor to cease work and contract the architect if such material is discovered. The application complies with this standard. Much of the proposed new work is contemporary in design, but does not detract from the historic character of the mill structure.
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;
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: All of the exterior alterations proposed would be reversible. The new work, such as the concrete steps and seating, will differ substantially enough in style for a casual user to identify historic and non-historic portions of the building.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the work as presented. Staff does not expect the City's building code and zoning review process to require substantial changes to the design but recommends that the Commission delegate review of these items to Staffs discretion." Mr. Knight also said that any major changes should be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee and returned to the Historic Landmark Commission for final approval.
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff. Upon hearing no questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Alison Drinkwater of Cooper Roberts Simonsen Architects, representing the applicant, was present. She stated that she concurred with the staff report. She added that perhaps one day the building would undergo restoration interpreting its original function as a mill. Ms. Drinkwater stated that the applicant is trying to make a minimal impact with the structural changes. She said that the applicant has chosen not to go with sheer walls but instead with partitions that would not be seen from either side. Ms. Drinkwater stated that the mechanical systems and things that make people comfortable are hidden. She added that the desire is to bring the building back and make a "living museum" even without the real restoration.
Ms. Drinkwater said that it has been proposed to display a model of the original building with the stream. She said there is a tunnel underground that took the water out beginning at the northwest corner of the building going in a westerly direction. Ms. Drinkwater added that during the excavation, if it were discovered, the construction would stop until the issue is addressed.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring about the re-grading. Ms. Drinkwater said that there are many hills and bumps on the property. Ms. Drinkwater noted that the only grade change proposed, immediately around the building, would be on the west side.
Ms. Parvaz asked if the mechanical systems would be visual on the exterior of the building. Ms. Drinkwater said that small pipes would be installed on the roof and painted black so they would not be so "glaring", and there would be some electronic gear where the telephones and networks would be connected on a pole, rather than on the building.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about signage on the building in addition to what is currently in place. Ms. Drinkwater mentioned that the "BY" and the "1852" lettering on the north and south ends of the building would be repaired, restored, and put back in place. She added that there would be a handicapped entrance sign where one would push the button to open the door. Ms. Drinkwater said that there would be some directional signs on the interior and a sign alerting the public to the heavily secured areas.
Mr. Parvaz also asked about exterior lighting. Ms. Drinkwater said there would be a light at the front door and the same type of pole lights that are inside the park, would be installed around the building. Mr. Parvaz inquired if there would be any lighting directed on the building to show the architectural features. (Ms. Drinkwater was interrupted and did not answer).
• Mr. Ashdown inquired further into the mechanical equipment and asked if the pipes on the roof would be vents and how the building would be heated and cooled. Ms. Drinkwater said that the pipes were for the ventilation system. She added that the exterior original timber columns would hide the mechanical equipment for the heating and cooling systems. Ms. Drinkwater said that the equipment on the interior would be hidden in the ceilings of the restrooms and kitchen on the main level, then would extrude from the upper interior walls. She noted that there would be nothing visible on the main level, which is the important space to preserve. She also talked about the mechanical room at the northeast corner in the basement.
Mr. Ashdown asked if the excavated basement would be the main public entrance to the building and what would be the use of the French doors. Ms. Drinkwater said that the use of the doors was to put openings back in that were there originally. She indicated that the doors are not required by code, but they could be used for egress. Ms. Drinkwater said the doors would lead into the theater space, and not widely used. She said that the main door used by the public would be the one on the
south side of the building.
Mr. Ashdown talked about the fact that the exterior surface of the building had been altered several times. He inquired if the cement surface would be removed to expose the original adobe. Ms. Drinkwater said there had been some discussion about taking the building back and restoring the original adobe surface, but the idea ran into several problems because the architects could not devise a way to integrate a restored whythe of adobe with the original adobe. Also, the cost would be prohibitive. She said that the Friends of Tracy Aviary would eventually like to see that happen, but for the time being, the concrete block is schedule to stay. Mr. Ashdown asked if there were local contractors who restored adobe and Ms. Drinkwater said, "Yes, for a price." Mr. Ashdown said that this is a very exciting project and it is a long time coming.
Ms. Mickelsen asked about the seismic upgrading. Ms. Drinkwater said that a core would be drilled down through the middle of the wall then filled with concrete and rebar. She said that plywood would be used for sheer walls on the upper level on top of the existing joints and planking so they would not be visible and also be hidden by the shingles on the exterior. She added that the steel bars, which were installed on the exterior in the 1970s, tie into the masonry and would remain. When Mr. Parvaz inquired if there would be a diaphragm or any reinforcement, Ms. Drinkwater said that there would be a special extra thick tongue and groove flooring fastened together with adhesive that would act like a diaphragm.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, she was excused and Ms. Mickelsen 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. Rick Graham, Director of Public Services Administration for Salt Lake City, stated that he was responsible for the City parks as well as other Divisions. He added his support to the project by saying he was very pleased with the major renovation going on in the park. Mr. Graham said that the Chase Mill has been on the City's renovation list for years and priority has been the issue in comparison and in competition with other projects. Mr. Graham stated, "We feel very fortunate that we have a situation where we can draw upon the partnership of the Friends of Tracy Aviary who are the managing partners of the Aviary for the City. The City still owns Tracy Aviary with the bird stock and facilities there. The City will continue to own the Chase Mill." He indicated that the City has a management and lease agreement with the Friends of Tracy Aviary, a non-profit group. He pointed out that they are responsible to secure the funding for this renovation and the City would be giving them the use of the building for administrative offices and other purposes. Mr. Graham said that there would also be other purposes that would be available to the public. He mentioned that the Aviary charges a fee for public entrance but one would not have to go in the Aviary to enter the Chase Mill. In conclusion, Mr. Graham reiterated the City's support for the renovation of the Chase Mill at this time.
Upon hearing no additional requests, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Ashdown said that this would be a "great project and it is very refreshing to walk into a building that is in the current state that this building is in and know that it is slated for restoration and not demolition."
Mr. Parvaz asked if plans for the restoration of the Chase Mill were included in the Liberty Park Master Plan. Mr. Knight said that the master plan calls for the building to be restored. Mr. Knight added that there was some thought that Tracy Aviary would use the building.
Mr. Knight commented that the landscaping would include native species of foliage planted, especially along the canal bed on the north side of the building, which would be appropriate both to the historic record of the Mill site and also the park.
Mr. Parvaz wanted to know if anything would be constructed or placed in the park that would block the view of the Mill from the main walkway. Mr. Knight said that nothing would block the view of the building; it will remain open.
Motion:
Ms. Rowland moved to approve Case No. 029-02 as proposed, based on Staff's recommendation and findings of fact. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Briefing on draft revisions to the Historic Landmark Commission signage policy.
Mr. Knight narrated a slide presentation on buildings in the city, comparing the existing signage with the past. Mr. Knight reported that the subcommittee completed its review of the draft of the Commission's signage policy. He said, after the Commission's review, Staff plans to release the draft for public comment and present the policy, along with a visual presentation, to various stakeholders, including sign companies, community councils, the Business Advisory Board, Downtown Alliance, Vest Pocket Business Coalition, etc. He also said that Staff plans on sending a notice to business license holders within the district. Mr. Knight noted that after these groups comment on the draft and Staff makes revisions, the policy would return to the Historic Landmark Commission for final review and adoption.
Mr. Knight reviewed the draft document. Included in the draft was the existing Historic Landmark Commission's Sign Policy, which was adopted in February 1, 1984. The draft of Standards for Commercial Signs in Historic Districts and Landmark Sites incorporated general standards for: 1) Sign context; 2) Sign types; 3) Projecting signs, canopy, and marquee signs; 4) Window signs; 5) Awning signs; 6) Monument signs; 7) Inappropriate sign types; 8) Sign materials; 9) Sign lighting; 10) Sign content; and 11) Historic signs.
The specific category standards included: 1) Contributing commercial buildings in historic districts; 2) Commercial uses in former residential buildings; 3) Downtown; 4) Standards for the South Temple Historic District; 5) Standards for the 1300 East commercial area; and 6) Fourth South commercial area. A copy of the complete draft was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Knight talked about how the City strengthened the signage ordinance in the 1970s because of the many signage problems that existed, such as too many flamboyant signs for one building. He added that Staff believed the revised signage policy could be opened up a little. Mr. Knight said it would have to ensure that signage would be compatible with the building and that it would enliven the streetscape. He said that the business owners needed to be aware that awnings draw attention to the building, as well as signs. He added that Staff would be open to new materials for signage.
The following are excerpts of the discussion:
Consider a principal façade and a secondary sign so the corner would not have two equally huge signs;
Do not limit the amount of signage on multi-tenant building to one, but allow awning and window signs and not count those towards the limit;
Problem with enforcing the limitation of "price" signs in or on the exterior of windows;
Monument signs seems to work well if they are parallel to the wall of the building;
Christmas lights on commercial properties in residential neighborhoods should be seasonal, only;
Signage should reflect the name of the building;
Should there be a limitation for signage or logos on awnings;
Historically every retail store or office had their own sign; No signage on the awnings on the upper stories;
Encourage awnings with signs, if that was the only means of having signage;
Real estate signs, for rent/lease signs, or banners that appear to be permanent should be limited in some way;
Important to break up the signage ordinance into commercial areas because the buildings are very different;
The new signage policy should be referenced in the zoning ordinance;
Standard 2.5 a. and b. seems to be the same, also in c. where it reads "not exceeding six feet" "in height" needs to be added;
Banner, pole, or pylon signs are not included in the list of standards;
The language could be a little more consistent when defining a certain type of sign;
A glossary or a definition of terms would be helpful;
Add photographs of sample signage in the policy;
The idea of using laser beams for projecting signs on building elevations should be explored;
The material section (4.0) should be expanded to include materials such as bronze and brass, and materials could be considered on a case-by-case basis:
Changeable electronic copy signs were discussed. The signage policy would not allow them in historic districts. The zoning ordinance currently allows them if the information changes every three seconds;
The way the sign policy draft is written, ticker signs would not be allowed. They could be explored; and
Letterbox signs where the lettering is changed manually comes under the definition of backlit-plastic panel signs, which are not allowed in the draft signage policy. If the sign companies develop a letterbox sign that is not backlit, there may be some compromise.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for Staff, Ms. Mickelsen thanked Mr. Knight for the slide presentation.
Special working luncheon.
Ms. Giraud reminded the Commission of the special working luncheon on Monday, September 23, 2002 at 12:30 P.M. where revisions to the preservation ordinance would be discussed. She said that she has identified the most critical issues, such as economic hardship and others. She said that she would E-mail some information to the members of the Commission before Monday.
Central City Community Master Plan.
. A draft copy of the Central City Community Master Plan was delivered to the Commissioners early so more time could be given to reading and studying the plan before the Historic Landmark Commission on October 2, 2002. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out the historic preservation chapters. Ms. Giraud suggested that the Commission also focus on to the residential section, as well as the land use map. There was some discussion regarding the master plan.
Bill and Nada's Cafe sign.
Mr. Ashdown inquired about the Bill and Nada's sign that was destroyed. Mr. Knight said that the prospective owners at that time that they would remove it and install it on the interior of the new building. Mr. Littig said that the owners wanted $500.00 for it. An offer was made at $100.00 and the owners would not accept it, then it was found out that a bulldozer crushed the sign. Carmack's was going to save the sign. Ms. Giraud said that if the corner becomes an office building or a bank, "I would not blame them for not wanting the sign". The wall mural was destroyed with the building. There was a discussion that the sign could have been sold and preserved.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parvaz moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 5:40 P.M.