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.