Loading...
PLNZAD2022-00787 - 602 E 300 SSeptember 28, 2022 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION DECISION AND FINDINGS PLNZAD2022-00787 REQUEST: This is a request for an Administrative Interpretation regarding whether the building located at approximately 602 E 300 S (tax ID#16-06-284-001-0000) is a non-contributing structure to the Central City Local Historic District. DECISION: The Zoning Administrator finds that the Non-Contributing status of the building at approximately 602 East 300 South should remain unchanged. The Zoning Administrator finds that the character defining features of the structure have been substantially altered and that the building does not satisfy the definition or criteria for a contributing structure found in Section 21A.34.020.C. It does not retain the historic integrity, or historic significance in terms of architecture, workmanship, and association with a significant person, or provide information important in the understanding of the history of Salt Lake City. BACKGROUND: The subject property is in the Central City Historic District, within the H (Historic Preservation Overlay District) and is subject to the standards in section 21A.34.020.H of the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance. The structure is a two-story Colonial Revival box type building that was constructed c. 1906. Per the 1911 Sanborn maps, it was a single-family dwelling in 1911. The building permit card shows two units added in 1948, and the 1950 Sanborn map states that it was a two-family dwelling. It was later converted to office use. Section 21A.34.020.B of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states the following regarding contributing and non-contributing structures: Contributing Structure: A structure or site within the H historic preservation overlay district that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C15 of this section and is of moderate importance to the city, state, region or nation because it imparts artistic, historic or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic materials may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact. Non-Contributing Structure: A structure within the H historic preservation overlay district that does not meet the criteria listed in subsection C15 of this section. The major character defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic form, materials and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures may also include those which are less than fifty (50) years old. Historic Resource Surveys are one of the tools used by Staff for the purpose of identifying and evaluating the quantity and quality of historic resources for land use planning purposes following the guidelines and forms of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The first survey conducted in what became the Central City Historic District was in 1980. Buildings were evaluated and each one was given one of the following ratings: • Significant • Contributory • Not Contributory • Intrusion In 1980, the subject structure was designated as “Contributing” with “Minor Alterations”. The site information form indicates the building condition is “Good”. The alterations are noted as a concrete porch and the second story porch railing. The description notes that it is constructed of masonry and has a brick exterior. It notes it was constructed for Mary J. Brenner, but it does not provide additional information on its owners, occupants or architect. The local Central City Historic District was designated in 1991. In the 1994 Central City Survey, the porch is enclosed with glass and the building was noted as “contributing” to the National Historic District, which was designated in 1996. Historic surveys were also conducted in 2012-2013, and each property within the Central City Historic District was evaluated and given one of the following ratings: • Eligible Significant • Eligible Contributing • Ineligible Non-Contributing • Out of Period The 2012-2013 survey report called out the property as one where the status changed from Eligible Contributing to Ineligible Non-Contributing. Changes from 1995 to 2012-2013 include replacement concrete stairs without a sidewall and vinyl siding on the third-floor hipped dormer. Additionally, Salt Lake City HLC Card Files include HLC Screened Case 2863 from 1998 for the application of stucco, which appears to have been added in 1997. The card file states: Continue with a base coat, only, of stucco on the south and east walls of this building. This legalizes the base coat that is already on the north and west walls. Owners will take off the styrofoam quoins. This is the solution agreed upon by the ASC in October, 1997. 5/20/98 EG Subsequently, there were additional changes to the property since the 2012-2013 survey, based on a comparison of the survey photos and images from Google Street View. The changes include the replacement of windows that were not original to the building. These windows are located on the west and east facades of the building and are visible from the right-of-way. The size of the window openings has not changed. The third-floor gabled dormer windows were also replaced between 1980 and 2011 (Google Street View), but it is not clear whether this change occurred prior to 1994. ANALYSIS & FINDINGS: The Ordinance criteria in Section 21A.34.020.C.15 draw directly from the national preservation methodology and evaluation criteria developed by the U.S. Department of the Interior for the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation. In relation to evaluating a property, the National Park Service provides clarification and guidance in the National Register Bulletin 15 ‘How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation’. 21A.34.020.C.15 Standards For The Designation Of A Landmark Site, Local Historic District Or Thematic Designation: Each lot or parcel of property proposed as a landmark site, for inclusion in a local historic district, or for thematic designation shall be evaluated according to the following: A. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following: 1. Events that have made significant contribution to the important patterns of history, or 2. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation, or 3. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or 4. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; Analysis: The subject property is a component of the Central City Historic District. A component of a district cannot contribute to the significance of the district if it does not share the historic associations of the district. The Central City Historic District was nominated for its significance in the areas of Architecture, Community Planning & Development, and Social History, which directly relate to evaluation criteria 1, 2 & 3 under the evaluation criteria for significance in subsection 15. The Central City Historic District represents contributing architectural types and styles built over more than a century. The 1996 National Register Nomination Form identified the period of significance as from c. 1870s-1946. The 2013 Central City Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) surveyed buildings constructed through 1968 to consider a possible amendment to extend the period of significance to 1968. The RLS included the following contextual periods of significance: • (1847-1689) Initial Settlement • (1870-1899) Transition • (1900-1922) Mature Community • (1923-1955) Depression & Decline • (1956-1995) Erosion of Residential Character • (1996-2013) Preservation vs. Progress The subject property was constructed c. 1906, placing it in the Mature Community context. This is the period in which the majority of resources in the Central Community Historic District were constructed, a total of 368. This period embodies the growth of Salt Lake City as a western city and the growth of the “suburbs” surrounding the city. Development in the neighborhood transitioned from single-family homes to multifamily dwellings. The box type of the structure with Colonial Revival elements is visible and distinguishable. This includes the hipped roof of the third-floor dormer window, brackets and dentils in the overhanging eaves, the pedimented lintels above the windows, the 8/1 light windows on the second floor, the quoins on the second floor of the front elevation, and the second-floor bay on the west elevation. However, as described above, there have been numerous alterations to the exterior of the building. Cumulatively, and particularly with the application of the stucco, the structure has lost its integrity and is considered non-contributing to the historic district. As identified above it was constructed c. 1906 for Mary J. Brenner. There is not additional information on its owners, occupants or architect. There is no evidence that it is significant to lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state, or nation. B. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the national park service for the national register of historic places; Analysis: The National Park Service defines integrity as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. In relation to the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the National Park Service, several observations can be made. • Location: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed. The building was constructed in its current location; therefore, the location of the building remains intact. • Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. The original architectural design of this building was a box type with elements of the Colonial Revival style. The structure has been significantly altered with the application of stucco in the late 1990s, following the designation of the local and National Register Central City historic districts. Additionally, there are other modifications including the installation of vinyl siding on the third floor, replacement windows on the secondary facades, the enclosure of the front porch with wrapped columns and glass, and replacement of the entry stairs. Many of these changes can be reversed. However, the application of the stucco is difficult to reverse. Ultimately, the structure does not retain its design integrity. • Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. This building is situated at the southeast corner of 300 South and 600 East, facing 300 South. There are 10 structures fronting this block face and, with the exception of this structure and 302 South 700 East (Papa Murphy’s), the others are contributing to the district. The north side of the block face has 13 contributing structures. The only non-contributing or out-of-period structures are those at the intersection of 300 South and 700 East. The remaining three corners of the intersection of 300 South and 600 East are contributing. Additionally, the property is adjacent to 600 East and the structure contributes to the character of the “parking” median added early in the 20th century. The setting of the subject property retains a substantial degree of integrity. • Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. As discussed previously, there is a layer of stucco covering the brick, which is an alteration that is difficult to reverse. Additionally, the porch columns have been wrapped and the porch enclosed with glass, the entry steps replaced, and many of the windows on the secondary facades replaced. The integrity of the structure’s materials are not intact. • Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. The original construction of the structure included many details that are still visible. This includes the brackets and dentils under the second story eaves and the second-floor bay window on the west elevation. However, with the removal and modification of character defining features, including significant alterations such as the application of the stucco, alteration of the porch, and replacement of windows, the structure no longer provides physical evidence of the workmanship associated with the type and style of construction. • Feeling: Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. This building does not retain enough of the architectural features that convey the property’s historic character. The structure has been significantly altered through the modification of character defining features of the property as previously noted. The structure no longer provides a clear historic sense of a particular period of time. • Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Planning staff finds no direct link between important historic events or persons in regards to the subject building. C. The proposed local historic district or thematic designation is listed, or is eligible to be listed on the national register of historic places; D. The proposed local historic district contains notable examples of elements of the city's history, development patterns or architecture not typically found in other local historic districts within Salt Lake City; E. The designation is generally consistent with adopted planning policies; and F. The designation would be in the overall public interest. Analysis: Standards C through F are not applicable because they relate to designation of a district or site, and not to reevaluating the contributing status of individual parcels within the already designated Central City Local Historic District. Findings: Subsection 21A.34.020C.15 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance outlines criteria that each property within a historic district must meet to be considered “contributing” to the historic district. The findings conclude that the subject property does not meet the criteria for both standards A and B to be considered a contributing to the local historic district. Based on the foregoing findings and analysis, the structure’s character defining features are not intact and have been substantially altered; therefore, the structure is non-contributing to the Central City Local Historic District. If you have any questions regarding this interpretation, please contact Sara Javoronok at (801) 535-7625 or by email at sara.javoronok@slcgov.com. APPEAL PROCESS: An applicant or any other person or entity adversely affected by a decision administering or interpreting this Title may appeal to the Appeals Hearing Officer. Notice of appeal shall be filed within ten (10) days of the administrative decision. The appeal shall be filed with the Planning Division and shall specify the decision appealed and the reasons the appellant claims the decision to be in error. Applications for appeals are located on the Planning Division website at https://www.slc.gov/planning/applications/ along with information about how to apply and processing fees. Sara Javoronok, AICP Senior Planner CC: Nick Norris, Planning Director Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director Mayara Lima, Zoning Administrator John Anderson, Planning Manager Casey Stewart, Planning Manager Posted to Web File Attachments: Vicinity Map Tax Photos Current Photos Historic Surveys (1980, 1994, and 2012-2013) Extracts from Central City District Survey-Final Report (2013) Building Permit Card HLC Card Files Clips from Sanborn Maps VICINITY MAP TAX PHOTOS Subject property, 1936. Photo courtesy Salt Lake County Archives. Subject property, 1978. Photo courtesy Salt Lake County Archives. CURRENT PHOTOS Front/North Elevation Side/West Elevation Front/North and Side/East Elevations Side and Rear/South Elevations HISTORIC SURVEYS Central City Update RLS Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County – December 2012 – January 2013 C 300 SOUTH SHEET 2 OF 4 556 E. 300 S. OP 564 E. 300 S. EC 569 E. 300 S. ES 573 E. 300 S. EC 580 E. 300 S. NC 580 E. 300 S. NC 601 E. 300 S. EC 602 E. 300 S. NC 609 E. 300 S. EC 612 E. 300 S. EC 614 E. 300 S. NC 615 E. 300 S. EC EXCERPT FROM CENTRAL CITY HISTORIC DISTRICT SURVEY – FINAL REPORT 2013 Central City RLS Survey Report Revised Final 8 self-sufficiency of Mormon settlers in Utah and extolling the religious virtues of domestic industry. The society held annual expositions in conjunction with the general conference of church members. The exposition was held in numerous locations over the years until finding what appeared to be a permanent home with the construction of the elaborate Exposition Building and grounds at the 10th Ward Square in 1888. The annual gatherings were held at the Exposition building until ca. 1902, at which time they moved to their current location at the Utah State Fair Grounds. Mature Community (1900 to 1922) By the turn of the 1900s, Salt Lake City had matured into a typical western city connected to the rest of the nation by rail, offering numerous amenities, and no longer dependent on an agrarian lifestyle. Greater religious and ethnic diversity, and greater diversity of employment opportunities, followed the evolving economy of the city. The religious diversity is reflected, in part, by the appearance of the Swedish Mission Church and the Seventh Day Adventist Church buildings in the Central City survey area by 1911. The mining industry still provided substantial employment and wealth (to a few individuals) to the area’s residents. As the population of the area continued to diversify and grow, and the streetcar system continued to expand and improve its efficiency, the popularity of the “suburbs” surrounding the downtown business center of the city rose, as did the attractiveness of suburbs further away. By 1911, few vacant lots remained in the Central City survey area. Those that were available were primarily located in the southern half of the survey area and appear to have been associated with platted subdivisions that had yet to be developed. These trends brought interesting, almost contrasting, changes to the neighborhood of the Central City survey area. On the one hand, single-family housing construction boomed as more residents flooded the neighborhood. Larger lots were subdivided and platted subdivisions were built out. Residential courts consisting of multiple attached single-family dwellings also became popular in the area, as did residential courts of small, detached Bungalows. On the other hand, a slow exodus of single -family homeowners also began during this period. This is evidenced, in part, by the increase in the number of single-family dwellings beings used as rental properties (Giraud 2001). Construction of multi-family housing, particularly in the form of multi-story apartment buildings, also increased during this period. These apartments, along with the residential courts, served to increase the population density of the neighborhood. Utah Exposition Building, ca. 1888. Photo courtesy of Utah State Historical Society. Central City RLS Survey Report Revised Final 9 While the neighborhood of the Central City survey area was never a historically dense commercial area (as opposed to its current status), there was a minor increase in commercial services during the first decade of this period. In many cases, these commercial ventures were small grocery stores, drug stores, butcher shops, and bakeries that served the local residents. Other commercial enterprises served a broader population and included a carpet cleaner, the Paris Hand Laundry, and a cigar box factory. Also by 1911, the once abandoned Industrial Christian Home had reopened as the Hotel Fifth East. Two major efforts prior to 1910 served to create an identity for the Central City neighborhood. One was the rise of the City Beautiful movement in 1906, and the other was the construction of the Utah Light & Railway Company (UL&R) car barns and shops in 1908 at what is now Trolley Square. The City Beautiful movement was a national movement intended to improve the aesthetic appeal of cities and, by extension, the living conditions of urban residents. In Salt Lake City, the movement, which extended into the 1920s, was heavily promoted by Mayor Ezra Thompson and the Improvement League. Local beautification efforts included such projects as paving streets, installing curb and gutter and street lighting, creating parks, and planting trees, flowers, and other ornamental landscaping in public spaces. In the Central City neighborhood, the movement manifested itself in raised and landscaped medians that extended along many of the neighborhood’s major streets, including 600 East. The 600 East median extended from the Governor’s mansion on South Temple to the northern entrance of Liberty Park at 900 South. The median, which is still present today and remains as one of the few medians still fully intact along its original length, serves as a unifying element tying the northern and southern portions of the Central City survey area together. The development of Trolley Square as the center of operations for the UL&R established the Central City neighborhood as a transit-oriented neighborhood. The square, which had previous held the Utah Exposition Building, was purchased by E.H. Harriman, the wildly successful leader of the Union Pacific Railroad Company and all-around railroad magnate. Harriman, who for years had been engaged in buying up small, local rail companies to add their capacity and geography to his massive Union Pacific system, had purchased controlling interest in the UL&R. In 1908, he invested more than $3 million to construct a series of Mission style trolley barns, maintenance buildings, and support structures at what would then become Trolley Square. The complex also included the iconic water tower that stands on the property today. Depression and Decline (1923 to 1955) As much as the streetcar system had spurred the growth and influenced the development of the Central City neighborhood during its early history, the rise of the automobile may have changed it even more. As they always have, automobiles brought a form of geographic freedom that had not really existed, particularly in the interior West, prior to their “arrival”. While railroads and transit lines offered increased mobility to those without horses and wagons, they followed prescribed routes and required transfers or walking by passengers to get to many locations. By contrast, automobiles could take travelers wherever they wanted to go. As automobiles became more affordable over time, Central City RLS Survey Report Revised Final 14 Figure 6. Construction trends by decade showing numbers of properties currently represented in the district. Figure 7. Number of current properties by thematic period. 4 16 73 194 154 41 12 13 30 15 25 22 8 17 13 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 93 368 69 78 30 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Initial Settlement (1847-1869) Transition (1870-1899) Mature Community (1900-1922) Depression & Decline (1923-1955) Erosion of Residential Character (1956-1995) Preservation vs. Progress (1996-2013) Central City RLS Survey Report Revised Final 28 appropriate repair, rehabilitation, and restoration projects. This general lack of information is likely due in large part to owner and resident turn over since the time the district was initially established. New outreach to property owners and residents of the area may provide increased opportunities to preserve both individual historical properties and the overall historical character of the area. Figure 10. 2013 eligibility ratings of buildings in the Central City local historic district. Table 5. Buildings for which a change in contributing status is warranted Address Previous Status Recommendation1 Current Status Recommendation1 544 East 100 South ES EC 546 East 100 South NC EC 602 East 300 South EC NC 721 South 500 East EC NC 833 South 500 East NC EC 40 South 600 East ES EC 72 South 600 East NC EC 1 ES = Eligible/Significant; EC = Eligible/Contributing; NC = Ineligible/Non-contributing 28 471 52 86 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 ES - Eligible/Significant EC - Eligible/Contributing NC - Ineligible/Non-contributing OP - Out-of Period ES EC NC OP BUILDING PERMIT CARDS HLC CARD FILES • SCREENED CASE NO 2863 ADDRESS : 602 East 300 South OWNER: Foster and Foster Attorneys (Repr. by a. Todd Anderson Construction) REQUEST : Repair existing wood fascia and soffits. Replace with new wood to match existing, as necessary. DATE : 6/22/2000 NK ADDRESS: OWNER: REQUEST: DATE: SCREENED CASE NO. 2249 602 East 300 South Grant and Lynn Foster Continue with a base coat, only, of stucco on the south and east walls of this building. This legalizes the base coat that is already on the north and west walls. Owners will take off the styrofoam quoins. This is the solution agreed upon by the ASC in October, 1997. 5/20/98 EG CLIPS FROM SANBORN MAPS Sanborn Map, 1911. Sanborn Map, 1950.