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 Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, and Oktai Parvaz. Pete Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Amy Rowland, 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
The approval of the August 21, 2002 minutes was postponed.
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. There were no public comments to the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 024-02. at 400 W. South Temple, by Irvine Johnson Associates. requesting approval of signage for the Virgin Megastore in the south end of the Union Pacific Depot. The Union Pacific Depot 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. He stated that Virgin Megastore, represented by architects, Irvine Johnson Associates, is requesting approval for signage for the store's new location in the Union Pacific Depot. The Depot is part of the Gateway Development. The Depot and surrounding property is zoned G-MU, Gateway Mixed Use. The gateway districts are intended to provide controlled and compatible settings for residential commercial, and industrial developments, and implement the objectives of the adopted Gateway Development Master Plan through district regulations that reinforce the mixed-use character of the area and encourage the development of urban neighborhoods containing supportive retail, service commercial, office, industrial uses, and high-density residential.
Mr. Knight gave the following background information: The Union Pacific Depot was constructed in 1908-1909, and was designed by D. J. Patterson, architects, and John D. Isaacs, consulting engineer. The building served as a railroad station until the 1980s, when Union Pacific gave the building to the State of Utah. The Utah Arts Council occupied the station for a time, and numerous proposals were put forward to restore the building for a new use. Gateway Associates, a group led by local developer, the Boyer Company, acquired the building in 1999 and renovated it to serve as the centerpiece of their large mixed-use development in the surrounding blocks.
The Historic Landmark Commission approved the renovation plan for the Depot, along with the two new adjoining additions, in December 1999 and December 2000. At that time, the future tenants for the building were unclear, so signage proposals were not included in the approvals. The Commission reviewed signage proposals for the House of Blues in September 2001, and the additional "The Gateway" signs on the building in December 2001 and May 2002. The Commission recently reviewed the removal of a portion of an interior wall as part of Virgin Megastore.
Mr. Knight stated that the Virgin Megastore would occupy the first floor of the south wing of the building. He pointed out that they have proposed three signs:
1. Freestanding pylon sign: The sign would have the Virgin Megastore logo on it and located at the east entrance (400 West) to the store in the south wing of the building. The freestanding sign would be 19'-9" high and 14'-6" wide. The signage area would be 84 square feet. The sign would be mounted approximately four feet away from the building. Hot water lines that run under the sidewalk in order to melt snow may require that the sign be mounted slightly closer to the building than four feet. The sign would be a metal cabinet, with white painted metal letters illuminated with halo style illumination, and red "blobby" Virgin logo in metal with white neon "Virgin" lettering. The City classifies this type of freestanding sign as a pole sign.
2. Marquee sign: The sign would be attached to the building at the west entrance to the store. A silver metal canopy would support a projecting red "blobby" Virgin logo in metal with white neon "Virgin" lettering. The logo would be five feet in diameter, making for a total sign area of 19.625 square feet. The City defines this type of sign as a marquee sign. A light box suspended inside the store window would spell out "Megastore" in backlit letters. Since this portion of the sign would be inside the glass, the Historic Landmark Commission would not review it.
3. Roof mounted sign: The sign would be mounted on the south roof of the building facing west. The sign would be approximately 33'-0" long and 10'-8" high, with a sign area of 153 square feet. Open channel metal letters (basically a metal cabinet with no face) with neon illumination would be mounted on a metal framework. The applicant submitted two potential scenarios, which were suggested by the Architectural Subcommittee. Originally, the metal framework planned to be attached to the wall of the building, similar to the way the former Union Pacific Depot Pacific shield and the current Gateway sign were mounted to the west side of the Depot. The other scenario is to mount the sign on a framework connected to the roof structure only, and not attached to the exterior brick walls. The City defines this type of sign as a roof sign.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(11), H. Historic Preservation Overlay of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. 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 Park IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs.
Staff's discussion: The applicant is requesting to use three different types of signs defined in Chapter 46 of the zoning ordinance. The signs and their compliance with the zoning ordinance are listed below. Note that a number of signs will require a special exception from the Board of Adjustment. As noted in Section 21A.46.070(V) of the zoning ordinance, the Board of Adjustment may allow modifications to an existing sign of the size, or placement of a new sign in an historic district or on a landmark site if the applicant can demonstrate that the location, size, and/or design of the proposed sign is compatible with the design period or theme of the historic structure or district and/or will cause less physical damage to the historically significant structure.
Mr. Knight said that this exception has been used to allow historic signs that no longer meet the City sign ordinance. Mr. Knight cited examples of these signs in the staff report. Staff determined that signs should be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission before they go to the Board of Adjustment. He noted that the Historic Landmark Commission could then recommend the special exceptions be granted or denied after determining if the signs are in keeping with the historic character of the building. This exception to justify a freestanding sign in lieu of a building sign was used for the signage for the House of Blues.
Mr. Knight pointed out that a summary of the proposed signs and their conformance with the requirements of Chapter 46 of the City zoning ordinance was included in the staff report.
Staff's finding of fact: The marquee sign complies with the requirements of Chapter 46, but the marquee does not. The pole and roof signs require a special exception from the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Knight stated that in 1984, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted a signage policy that provides criteria for determining whether a sign is consistent with the historic character of a building or district.
1. A sign is an integral part of the building facade in both design and function and should complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, style, and color. The Committee [Commission] considers the entire principal facade as the "sign" (i.e. in context). Signs should relate to the architecture of the building and not have a negative impact on neighboring properties and the streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The architect's intent with the design of the signs is to be compatible with the architecture of the building and have as little impact as possible on the historic physical fabric of the Depot, while still meeting the sign allowances for the base G-MU zone and the needs of their clients. Staff believes that the roof sign and the pylon sign would probably obscure important architectural features if mounted on the walls of the Depot, but these issues would not apply if the signs were moved to a different location such as the locations that are proposed.
The Commission has emphasized that the architecture of historic buildings should not be overshadowed by signage. The size and scale of the Depot would, in this case, allow signs of a size and scale that would overpower the character of most buildings in the historic districts. When considered as a group, the applicant proposed 293.5 square feet of total signage area. The amount of signage proposed is less than the amount of signage the Commission previously approved for House of Blues, (approximately 450 square feet, six separate signs).
The proposed signs follow historic design antecedents for train station signs (such as the roof sign framework, which is similar to the framework that once supported the UP shield on this building) and uses materials similar to those that were used historically. The proposed neon illumination and colors follow historic antecedents, and has been routinely approved by the Commission on other commercial projects.
Staff's finding of fact: the proposed signs complement the building in terms of location, size, illumination, materials, style and color.
2. In commercial areas of historic districts, such as South Temple, the Committee [Commission] encourages the use of /ow-key sophisticated signage such as brass lettering, painted signs in an historical character, etc. The Committee [Commission] encourages the spot lighting of buildings rather than illuminated signs in most cases. Backlit plastic and animated signs are discouraged. Indirect lighting is preferred.
Staff's discussion: Vintage photos of the Depot show that historically, there was little signage on the building. The large shield and Union Pacific lettering over the front entrance was added to the building shortly after the building's completion. Before that, historic photographs show three painted signs over the east entrance marking the building as the Union Station for the Southern Pacific and Oregon Short Line Railroads. • Historic photos also show no signs on the rear of the building.
With the building's change in use and the lively atmosphere envisioned for the development, Staff believes that additional signage is warranted. The west side of the building is now more of a "public face" than it was when the Gateway's shops were rail yards. Staff believes that signage on the west side of the Depot is warranted, even though it has no historic precedent.
Mounting the signs away from the building and onto freestanding poles helps to preserve the historic character of the Depot, much as the spotlighting recommended by the sign policy. The style and level of illumination is similar to that approved for the House of Blues. No backlit or animated signs are proposed.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed signage is in keeping with the character of the Depot and atmosphere of the surrounding environment. Indirect and neon lighting are proposed, which have been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission on similar commercial buildings.
3. The Historic Landmark Committee [Commission] considers the request for a sign in the context of the owner's comprehensive (total) signage plan for the building. For office/commercial uses, only one building identification sign will be approved by the Committee [Commission]. Tenants should be identified in an interior building directory.
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The comprehensive sign plan supplied by the Boyer Company as part of the House of Blues proposal included a roof sign, similar to the roof sign proposed as part of this application. No signage on the pod addition was included as part of that plan, but Staff finds that this would not preclude these signs if they otherwise meet the standards of the ordinance. At least one additional tenant is planned for the south wing of the Depot.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation: "Overall, Staff finds that the size, scale, number of signs, design and materials for the proposed signs are consistent with the character of the existing Depot. Staff recommends approval of the proposal, subject to the following: 1) Revisions to the marquee that will bring it into conformance with the zoning ordinance, and 2) Board of Adjustment approval of the roof sign and freestanding sign. Staff further recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to approve a special exception to allow the proposed signs. After the Board of Adjustment takes action on this proposal, the Architectural Subcommittee or Staff should review any changes to ensure that the changes are still in keeping with the character of the building."
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Littig inquired if there was a height limit for pylon sign. Mr. Knight said that the ordinance does not have a height limit listed for this zoning district because ordinarily they would not be allowed. Ms. Mickelsen asked about other zones. Mr. Knight said that a similar zone like the downtown zones, the height limit is 45 feet. Mr. Knight explained more about the requirement of pylon signs in other districts. When asked by Mr. Littig, Mr. Knight said that the zoning ordinance does not include a "pylon" sign category; the zoning ordinance has a category for "monument" or "pole" signs. Mr. Knight said that a monument sign could not have two freestanding poles. He added that a monument would be allowed in this zone, but its height is limited to twelve feet.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Richard Irvine of Irvine Johnson Associates, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that he had been working very closely with the City and felt fairly confident that the proposal would meet the requirements of the applicant. Mr. Irvine said, 'To plan a large Megastore in the Union Pacific Depot building has been a challenge." He said that the proposed neon and metal materials for the signs were consistent with the shield on the roof of the building, such as the open channel assembly with lighting within the face of the graphics. Mr. Irvine said that the company had designed the same signage for several Virgin Megastores and they seem to work particularly well.
Mr. Irvine said that the applicant would rather have a larger roof mounted sign than what was proposed, but because of the nature of the ordinance, they were willing to reduce the size of the roof sign. Also, he said that the applicant wanted to have a sign on the building, which would have been more sympathetic to the historic structure, instead of the marquee sign. He said that a six-foot marquee sign would conflict with some illumination. Mr. Irvine said that he would not want the marquee sign to be too far away from the building. He added that he would like to restrict the amount of projection from the building of the marquee sign.
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 asking about the colors of the signage. Mr. Irvine said that the colors would be red and white. He said that the body of the signs that would show the Virgin Megastores logo would have a dark metallic background with the script in white. Mr. Irvine said that sometimes the order is reversed. Mr. Irvine said that he believed the proposed signage has met the concerns of the Architectural Subcommittee. Mr. Irvine stated that Virgin Megastores is a large internationally known retailer and has a reputation to maintain. He said that retailers always want more but "we feel like we are somewhat bending over backwards trying to comply", yet giving his clients some measure of identity in a project that will be a "real draw" to the community, and substantially increase the traffic to this project, particularly with the kind of demographic that Virgin attracts. Mr. Irvine suggested that the project would be a good thing for the development as a whole, and possibly a good thing for downtown Salt Lake City. Mr. Parvaz asked about the detailing on the back of the east freestanding sign. Mr. Irvine said that it would be pulled in more and extra detail would be put into the rear of that sign. He added that it was panelized. He said that it was up against the building and he really doubted that people going in and out of the building would look up and see the back of the sign. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the material. Mr. Irvine said that it was metal.
• Mr. Littig inquired if the "Megastore" lettering on the sign at the front of the building could work on rails and make it more transparent. He added that the store's entrance is a very important door. Mr. Irvine said that he did not think there would be a problem with that suggestion. Mr. Littig asked about a transom sign but noted that it would visually interfere with the windows above. Mr. Irvine commented on the various methods that have been used for the signage. He discussed the possibility of altering the signage. Mr. Irvine concluded that because of the timing and the design issues, but he expressed a preference for the design of the signage as proposed. Ms. Heid said that the massing of the top piece of that proposed sign might look out of proportion.
• Mr. Knight inquired if the squares on the windows of the pod were going to be signs. Mr. Irvine said that they would be such graphics as album covers, book covers, DVD, and so forth, but they would be inside. He added that some would be double sided. Mr. Knight said that they needed to be inside the glass.
Mr. Knight said that there has been a question on how far a marquee sign is required to project out, so he said he would have to get an interpretation of the ordinance from the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Knight said that if a six-foot requirement is compulsory, Staff was asked by the applicants if there could be additional signage on the side at a ninety-degree angle to the face of the marquee. Mr. Knight said that a marquee must project a minimum of six feet and a maximum of twelve feet from the face of the building in order to provide pedestrian shelter. Signage on the sides of the marquee was allowed by the zoning ordinance. He added that the City's sign ordinance is very narrow because a few years the concern was that Salt Lake City had too much signage and was ruining the character of the streetscapes so the restrictions were tightened in the ordinance. Mr. Knight said, "We are inching back to allow additional signage."
Mr. Knight recommended that the Commission set a limit on how far it is willing to go and anything exceeding that would have to come back here or Architectural Subcommittee for final review. He stated, "If you are comfortable with the two-foot projection that is on the drawings, I think that is what Virgin would prefer, and so if there is a way, we could do that." Ms. Mickelsen asked if Staff recommended that it go to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Knight said that the marquee sign would meet the ordinance, so it would not have to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. He added that if it projected out six-feet from the face of the building, it would still meet the ordinance. Ms. Heid said that she didn't think the marquee sign was a better design than the sign that only projected two feet from the wall. Other Commissioners made suggestions and recommendations on how to develop a workable solution for this issue.
• Ms. Heid asked if the marquee sign, as proposed, met the definition of another type of sign, would it not be referred to as a marquee. Mr. Knight said that Staff has stretched the definition of marquee sign.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, he was excused and Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no 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
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the Commission was bound by the interpretation by the Zoning Administrator and asked Staff what actually could be done. Mr. Knight said that there were two options, such as 1) the Commission could approve it, as proposed, or it could be approved with a six-foot projection so it met the zoning ordinance; or 2) if it had to project out further, there would be a negative impact on the building, and then the applicant could put forth an application for historic building exception to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Knight reiterated that the pole and the roof signs would require a special exception from the Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Heid said that it was ironic that the designer wanted something less conspicuous and the Commission might have to approve "something larger and more obnoxious" to meet the marquee requirement.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the Commission approved the two-foot distance, would it be putting the applicant in a bind. Mr. Knight said that the applicants' preference was for the sign with a two-foot projection.
Mr. Littig said that he felt strongly that the two-foot projection on the west sign was more appropriate than the six-foot projection.
A discussion took place regarding the issues surrounding the proposed signage and how they met the requirements in the zoning ordinance in this district.
First motion:
Based on Staff's finding of fact and recommendation, Mr. Parvaz moved to approve Case No. 024-02, as presented by Staff, subject to revisions to the marquee that will bring it into conformance with the zoning ordinance and the Board of Adjustment approval of the roof sign and freestanding sign. Any revisions would be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee and approved administratively.
There was some discussion about the wording of the motion. Mr. Parvaz amended his motion.
Final amended motion:
Based on Staff's finding of fact and recommendation, Mr. Parvaz moved to approve Case No. 024-02, as presented by Staff, subject to revisions to the marquee that will bring it into conformance with the zoning ordinance and the Board of Adjustment approval of the roof sign and freestanding sign. Any revisions would be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee and approved administratively. Further, that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Board of Adjustment for the application for special exception. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, and Oktai Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote.
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. 026-02, a presentation by Bee Lufkin. consultant, to solicit comments for listing the "Frank M. Ulmer" house located at 1458 South 1300 East on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Lew presented her memorandum. A copy of the National Register form was filed with the minutes. She introduced Ms. Bee Lufkin, consultant, who will provide a brief presentation on the property. She said that as part of the nomination process, the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) considers comments from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission regarding the nomination of the Frank M. Ulmer house to the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Lew said that a complete nomination would be presented to the Board of State History at the September 19, 2002 meeting for review. She noted that the nominations approved by the Board are then submitted to the National Park Service, federal agency responsible for the National Register.
Ms. Lufkin gave a slide presentation with a narrative description regarding the significance of the Frank M. Ulmer house and the Lincoln Park subdivision. Ms. Lufkin said that the current owner of the building, Ms. Judith Owen Hooper, was present if the Commission had any questions they needed to ask her.
The following is a summary of the National Register nomination:
The Frank M. and Susan E. Ulmer house was built in 1891 at a time where there was tremendous growth in Salt Lake City. The city was growing to the southeast where there had been 300 platted subdivisions in the ten previous years. However, due to a turn in the economy in the early 1890s when the bottom fell out, the Ulmer house stood alone for probably a decade before the rest of the subdivision was built in with smaller Victorian Eclectic, bungalows, and post World War II homes, which was not what Mr. Ulmer envisioned for the subdivision.
Lincoln Park was platted by Andrew L. Mentz, a real estate developer, in December 21, 1889. It was annexed into Salt Lake City in 1892, and soon after the annexation, City water mains were laid.
Lincoln Park was an early classic streetcar subdivision, similar to others in the southeastern section of Salt Lake City that were created and developed by out-of-state developers during the real estate boom around the turn of the century. The subdivisions were located along or close to streetcar lines and consisted of long narrow residential building lots. The streetcar lines ran from the city along 1100 East to 2100 South. The boundary of the subdivision extended from 1100 East on the west, to 1300 East on the east, and from Harrison Avenue on the north to Emerson Avenue on the south. There were 3271ots in that subdivision.
The Salt Lake City canal, built in 1881-82 ran through the subdivision diagonally carrying water from Utah Lake via the Point-of-the Mountain to City Creek in Salt Lake City. A few feet to the west, the Salt Lake and Eastern Railroad tracks followed the path of the canal.
Frank Merriam Ulmer was born in 1949 in Appleton, Maine, and married Susan Elizabeth Bogle in her hometown of Boston, Massachusetts. They arrived in Salt Lake City in 1890 with their family. Mr. Ulmer initially worked with a Denver architect, A. E. White, and they advertised their services together as 'White and Ulmer" with offices in Salt Lake City. Apparently the next year, Mr. Ulmer had his own business with his office in his home on 1300 East, according to the Polk Directory. Mr. Ulmer was responsible for a variety of residential, commercial, and public buildings. Some of his distinguished buildings were the Grand Theater/Opera House at 119 East 200 South (now demolished) and Grove's LOS Hospital (now LOS Hospital). Although he was not a member of the LDS Church, he executed several commissions for LDS Church organizations, such as the Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution (ZCMI) store in downtown Salt Lake City, which is now demolished. At the end of his career while at the Board of Education, he was involved in the construction of South High School.
The Frank M. and Susan E. Ulmer house is a one-and-a-half story brick masonry Victorian Eclectic style house built in 1891. The house is on a hill in a corner lot, facing 1300 East and a steeply pitched street, Roosevelt Avenue. It maintains most of its character defining features, such as an irregular plan, asymmetric facade, carved, turned and scroll cut wood trim, patterned wooden shingles on vertical surfaces, and a variety of building materials, textures and colors. Smooth planar wall surfaces are avoided through the use of bays and projecting elements as well as a variety of textured wall coverings such as brick and shingles. The steeply pitched, hipped central roof portion has lower cross gables on all four elevations. Ornamental carved fan patterns appear on the gable ends at the peak and the tips.
The east elevation facade is asymmetrical with a cross gable to the south and a shed roofed partial-width entrance porch to the north. The second floor gable end has decorative shingles in fish scale and fishtail patterns and a single centered window with simple wood trim. A larger single window on the first floor has a segmental arch with a raised drip-mold window hood. An ornamental brick string course intersects the window at its top. The windowsill is rock-faced sandstone. Wooden Tuscan columns with a low turned wooden balustrade support the porch roof.
The basement and first floor are separated by a thick rock-faced sandstone string course. The same decorative brick string course incorporating raised segmental-arch, drip-mold window hoods that was seen on the facade intersects the pair of windows with transoms on the first floor. A leaded glass window on the north elevation lights the front stairwell on the east side. The basement windows have arched window heads. A broad cross gable is found in the center of the elevation and both the first and second floors each have a pair of windows. A shed roof covers a single room on the northwest corner. On the west elevation, there is a wooden raised walk from the kitchen door to the frame garage at the rear of the house.
The primary visual characteristic of the interior is the dark wood paneling in the large entrance staircase. The staircase has two landings with intricate turned balusters. The same dark wood is carried throughout the interior of the house.
The house has been remodeled and updated with additional bathrooms and a modernized kitchen through the years. The house is well maintained and in excellent condition with its first floor plan essentially unchanged.
A short discussion followed relating to the historic property. A question was asked about the landscaping and if it was original. Ms. Lufkin said that she did not know because the only photos she had are the tax photos. When Ms. Lufkin was asked about the garage, she said that a frame three-car garage was built to the rear of the house on the west and connected to the first floor by an open walkway. She added that there are no other outbuildings. Ms. Lufkin displayed a copy of the building plans for the house, which was not required for the nomination.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no 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
Since there was no additional discussion, Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chair, entertained a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Board of State History for Case No. 026-02 endorsing the Frank M. Ulmer house at 1458 South 1300 East to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, and Oktai Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote.
Case No. 027-02, a presentation by Korral Broschinsky of Preservation Document Resource to solicit comments for listing the "Bennion-Douglas" neighborhoods, located between 700 and 1300 East. and 500 and 900 South Streets. on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Lew presented her memorandum. She stated that the Salt Lake City East Side Historic District has been created through a boundary increase of two previous districts: The Central City Historic District and the Bryant Neighborhood boundary addition to the Central City Historic District. A copy of the National Register nomination form was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Lew stated that as part of the nomination process, the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) considers comments from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark
Commission regarding National Register nominations within the city's boundaries. She said that complete nominations will be presented to the Board of State History at the September 19, 2002 meeting for review. Ms. Lew noted that nominations approved by the Board are then submitted to the National Park Service, the federal agency responsible for the National Register.
Ms. Lew introduced Ms. Korral Broschinsky of Preservation Document Resource, who gave a slide presentation with a narrative description of the district. She apologized for not having a large map to display, but due to technical difficulties she could not produce one.
Mr. Broschinsky referred to the vicinity map that was included in the Commission's packets, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She noted a correction on the map. She said the block where East High School is located at 850 South 1300 East will not be part of the historic district because it no longer has an historic structure on it.
Mr. Knight inquired how the district would jog around some of the non-historic buildings on 400 South. Ms. Broschinsky clarified that it would depend on what is decided about the boundaries between Central City and Bryant because the way those boundaries are drawn holes would be left in the combined district.
Ms. Broschinsky reported that this district nomination has been a long time in coming. She said that it is an extremely large district. Ms. Broschinsky pointed out that there are 1,385 primary buildings, not including outbuildings, of which 78 percent are contributing buildings in the district.
The following is a summary of the National Register nomination:
This nomination details a contiguous historic neighborhood to the east and south of the Central City Historic District. To avoid confusion, this area will be referred to as the Bennion-Douglas district, or the Bennion-Douglas neighborhood. Because the combination of the three areas comprise a large portion of the city's east side neighborhoods within the historic corporate boundaries, it has been determined the newly combined National Register district should be renamed the Salt Lake City East Side Historic District.
The borders of the Bennion-Douglas district are distinctive and easily define the area. The western boundary is the centerline of 700 East between 400 and 900 South. On the north, the boundary is the centerline of the 400 South transportation corridor. The street curves between 1000 and 1100 East to become 500 South at the northeast corner of the district. The curve was created in 1936 to undercut a geologic feature, the "East Bench Fault", which causes the topography to be steeply pitched in that location. The eastern boundary follows the western edge of the Mount Olivet Cemetery grounds. The boundary line parallels 1300 East. The southern boundary of the district is the centerline of 900 South between 700 and 1200 East. With the exception of a historic commercial district at the intersection of 900 South and 900 East, the southern boundary of the Bennion-Douglas neighborhood is primarily residential. Transportation corridors border each boundary line.
The Bennion-Douglas district is an area of approximately 26 ten-acre blocks and 3 five acre blocks. Within the district is the transition between the flat topography of the early settlement neighborhoods on the valley floor to the east bench settlement expansion that marked the historic eastern edge of the city. The streetscapes and architecture of the Bennion-Douglas neighborhood are similar to those found in the Central City and Bryant neighborhoods. All three areas are primarily residential with a mix of housing stock ranging from early settlement dwellings to present day. The majority of residences in the Bennion-Douglas neighborhood were built between 1890 and 1930. The three districts also include a number of historic commercial and institutional buildings. The residential areas have stayed residential and the commercial areas have stayed commercial. The institutional spaces, with a few exceptions, are still institutional.
There are two main differences between the boundary increase district and its predecessors. First, is a transition of development. The western half of the district is similar to the previous districts with the same block-and-lot development with later infill. As development moved to the east, there is a noticeable, though gradual, pattern of more planned development through subdivision platting and tracts of contemporaneous housing. However, there is no district boundary between the two areas, and there are as many nineteenth century dwellings on the benches as there are post-war residences on the flatlands.
Most green space within the district is associated with institutions. There are two pockets of open space that are relatively untamed: the gully in the Arlington Heights subdivision, and portions of the perimeter of the Judge Memorial [Catholic] High School athletic field. The one public green space is Gilgal Garden, a private sculpture garden recently acquired by Salt Lake City Corporation. Thomas B. Child, a stone and brick mason by trade, created the garden on a half-acre of land behind his home at 452 South 800 East.
There are several buildings in the district that are already listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, such as the Tenth Ward Square, which was the first to be listed in 1977.
Ms. Broschinsky organized the nomination into historic context and she presented examples from each era in her slide presentation.
Early Settlement. 1847-1879: There are no log cabins or dugouts on the hillside left although there were quite a few in this area during the settlement. There are some well-preserved adobe houses remaining.
Establishment of a Middle-Class and Working-Class Neighborhood. 1880-1910: During this time the area developed quite rapidly, including industry. The Salt Lake Brewery was established. Many water mains were laid. Parking medians were built, (the only one left is on 800 East). Housing types and styles of the Victorian era represent nearly one-third of the single-family dwellings within the neighborhood. The residential architecture ranges from highly individualized designs for the upper-middle class to tracts of cottages for the working class.
Rapid Growth. Prosperity and Community Building. 1910-1929: Over forty percent of the buildings in the district were built in this era. With a slight dip during World War I, there was steady growth and development from 1910 to the start of the depression years. Streetcars were in place by 1911. This was also the era of the automobile. Schools, churches, a home for the aged, and Judge Mercy Hospital were built.
Commercial buildings such as the Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph, the Highland Exchange, the 1911 Lefler-Woodman Building and by 1925 there were a number of businesses on a stretch of 900 South between 800 and 1000 East. At the end of 1929, few vacant lots were available in the district. Several more inner-block courts were developed. The bungalow became Utah's dominant architectural style for residences in this era. One-third of the contributing single-family homes in the district are bungalow in type. However, within this number is a range of styles. Most of the historic double houses (commonly referred to as duplexes) were built between 1900 and 1920s.
Depression. War and Post-War Stability, 1930-early 1950s: The depression years temporarily halted residential constructed in the early 1930s, but by the late 1930s, the Bennion-Douglas neighborhood was a beehive of construction activity, including a high percentage of remodeling. New construction is represented by the modest homes built at 777 and 779 East 600 South built in 1940. These homes typify the minimal traditional house developed by the Federal Housing Administration to promote home ownership during the depression. With little available land to develop, the neighborhood did not experience a post-World War II building boom, but houses of the post-war period are scattered sporadically through the district. After 1955 residential construction consisted primarily of multi-family units. The "box car" apartment building was popular, which was a long block of units with one end facing the street. Commercial buildings such as the Johnson Ice Cream Factory were built and several churches were constructed in this era.
Suburban Flight and Urban Renaissance (Out-of-Period Development). 1950s-2002: If the Bennion-Douglas district had a period of instability and decline, it occurred in the 1960s and 1970s and almost no new single-family homes were built, but several small scale apartment buildings were constructed. Many of the district's residents participated in a general "suburban flight" from the older urban neighborhoods. However, the amenities and access to downtown and the University helped the neighborhood maintain a stable, if somewhat transitory, population.
Ms. Broschinsky summarized her presentation by saying that the historic resources of the Salt Lake City East Side Historic District (Boundary Increase) of the Bennion-Douglas neighborhood illustrate a range of architectural types and styles that span nearly a century. The neighborhood has shown remarkable stability through the decades even though it is one of the city's most diverse.
A discussion took place regarding the number of resources listed on the nomination form. Gilgal Gardens was included in the history and slide presentation, but was not listed as a site on the resources list. The stone-lined gutter along 500 South between 900 and 1000 East Streets was included in the slide presentation, but also was not listed as a structure in the resources list. Urban planning issues should be brought forth to the forefront on National Register nominations.
Ms. Broschinsky said that she would take those suggestions into account and do more research into the recommendations that the Parks Service has as to the resources in a National Register nomination. Ms. Broschinsky also talked about how contributing buildings are listed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, 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 comment:
Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested party, stated that she has been part of this nomination for ten years. She recognized all the dedicated people who had worked so diligently on this project. She also praised the work that both Elizabeth Giraud and Korral Broschinsky did on this nomination. Ms. Cromer said that this is part of a larger picture that protects upper middle class and working people and the residential and commercial structures.
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
Since there was no additional discussion, Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chair, entertained a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Board of State History for Case No. 027-02 endorsing the Bennion-Douglas neighborhood to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, and Oktai Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote.
Case No. 028-02, a presentation by Korral Broschinsky of Preservation Document Resource to solicit comments for listing the "Salt Lake Engineering Works/Bogue Supply Company Building" located at 741 West 400 South on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Lew presented her memorandum. A copy of the National Register form was filed with the minutes. She said that as part of the nomination process, the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) considers comments from the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission regarding the nomination of the Salt Lake Engineering Works/Bogue Supply Company Building to the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Lew said that a complete nomination would be presented to the Board of State History at the September 19, 2002 meeting for review. She noted that the nominations approved by the Board are then submitted to the National Park Service, federal agency responsible for the National Register.
Ms. Korral Broschinsky of Preservation Document Resource was introduced once more. She said that FFKR Architects is the current owner of the subject rehabilitated building. She pointed out that a representative of FFKR, Mark Wilson, was in attendance at this meeting.
A short discussion occurred when Mr. Parvaz declared that he might have a conflict of interest. Since Mr. Parvaz was not presenting the nomination, the Commissioners believed there was no conflict of interest.
Ms. Broschinsky gave a slide presentation with a narrative description of the property. The following is a summary of the National Register nomination:
As the political capital of the State of Utah and the social and economic center for the Intermountain West, Salt Lake City has been one of the nation's major regional centers since its establishment in 1847. As a result, the number of foundries in the city quadrupled by the turn of the nineteenth century. Most of these facilities were located along an industrial corridor along either side of the numerous rail lines between 300 West and 500 West. The company built a spur from the nearby Denver & Rio Grande rail lines just to the east.
The Salt Lake Engineering Works made its first appearance in the Polk directories in 1904. William Read was the president and manager of the company. A 1904 advertisement declared it a company of "Founders and Machinists, Manufacturers of Mining, Milling, Concentrating, Smelting Machinery and Castings of all Kinds. Phosphor Bronze a Specialty". The company continued in operation until1931 with William E. Cannell as manager through the 1920s. The company specialized in large machinery and equipment for various uses.
The Bogue Supply Company was a firm established by Warren C. Bogue in 1910. Early advertisements for the Bogue Company described it as a purveyor of "new and second hand mining and milling machinery". It appears the Bogue Company originally used all three extant Salt Lake Engineering Works buildings. The president of the company at the time was Michael J. McGill. On June 13, 1942, the Manner Investment Company deeded the property to the Bogue Supply Company. By 1944 the Bogue Company was no longer using all three buildings.
For over five decades, the Bogue Supply Company was under the leadership of one family. Beginning in 1944, Frank M. Lee was the president. The Lee family continued to run the company until it finally closed its doors in 1998.
The Salt Lake Engineering Works/Bogue Supply Company Building is a shop-warehouse built of brick and steel between 1904 and 1907. No architect or builder was listed for building. The building and a later addition comprise an L-shaped structure. The structure has a simple gable roof and brick walls on a stone foundation. The structure is supported by a framework of standard steel sections. In 1942, an addition was made to the southwest corner. The addition consists of an iron-steel frame, half-height cinder blocks walls, and corrugated metal sheathing. The building is part of a complex of foundries and shops located at the corner of 700 West and 400 South. The complex was divided into two separate parcels in 1952, and the shop-warehouse shares a common wall with a foundry building to the east on the other parcel. The words "Bogue Supply Company" are still visible on the north elevation, and the building is commonly known as the Bogue Building. The rehabilitation was completed in June of 2002 as a federal tax credit project. The Bogue building has been adapted for use as office space for an architectural firm.
The foundry is typical of the period. It is constructed of heavy timbers and brick masonry. The foundation of the Bogue Building is stone, though it was later encapsulated in concrete, probably during the 1941-1942 remodeling and addition. The brick is commercial grade and laid in American common bond with headers at every seventh course. Stylistically the warehouse-shop mimics the commercial-style architecture of the foundry, which is brick corbelling at the cornice line, rowlock brick accenting the sills and the relieving arches, projecting masonry pilasters, etc. On the east and west ends, the brick parapet is stepped. The rehabilitation included cleaning of the exterior brick, as well as repair work and re-painting. The roofline of the warehouse is higher than the foundry, and is a simple gable with a monitor roof along the ridgeline. A 1912 interior photograph of the Bogue building shows light coming through the monitor, probably through skylights, louvers or a combination of both. The photograph also shows a series of multiple-pane warehouse skylights along the south slope of the roof. The roofing material has changed several times through the years. The original material is unknown. The roof skylights may have been removed at that time or later, when a corrugated metal roof was installed, probably in the 1970s. A new metal roof, similar to the old, was installed during the 2002 rehabilitation.
There is no one prominent elevation. The east end abuts the foundry building. The west end is blank with no openings, although with distinctive corbelling and a crow-stepped gable. The north elevation features eight bays with four large loading doors and four pairs of large warehouse windows. The south elevation is similar to the north, though the original west end is obscured by the 1942 addition. The original loading doors feature style and rail double doors with diagonal wood planking and a smaller door inset. The doors were in generally poor condition and have been replaced with glass. Two interior doors have been refurbished in place. The majority of the windows are multi-light (twentyover-fifteen) set in a wood sash. The windows were repaired except when too damaged to salvage, and replacements were built to match existing. The adapted reuse plan of the addition converted this space into a main entrance-reception area and storage room. A new aluminum storefront-type entrance was added to the east elevation of the addition.
With the crane system removed from the interior of the building, the structural system of the building is more apparent. The crane has been refurbished and is still on the site. The brick masonry is mainly infill with little load-bearing function. The building is supported on a framework of steel columns and beams. The roof is supported on a series of modified Fink-style trusses held together with gusset plates. Another unique feature is the series of inverted bowstring trusses that function as purlins of the roof structure. The floor is concrete. Some sheetrock (painted white) finish work has been done on the walls, however the building retains its warehouse feeling and most of the steel framework has been left exposed.
The Salt Lake Engineering Works/Bogue Supply Company Building is remarkably well preserved and is a contributing resource in one of Salt Lake City's industrial west side neighborhoods.
Since the Commission had no questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no 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
Since there was no additional discussion, Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chair, entertained a motion.
Motion:
Ms. Heid moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Board of State History for Case No. 028-02 for the Salt Lake Engineering Works/Bogue Supply Company Building located at 741 West 400 South to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, and Oktai Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
• Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Littig 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 6:00P.M.