April 6, 2005

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 David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, and Kevin LoPiccolo.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Paula Carl, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Scott Christensen and Lee White were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Programs Supervisor/Zoning Administrator, Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner, Planner, Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.

Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.

An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the n1eeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The majority of the Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site.

COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION

Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no remarks, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.

REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR

Mr. Wheelwright reported that he was not certain if Mr. Zunguze would be able to attend the meeting.

Mr. Wheelwright stated that on Monday, April 4, 2005, the Land Use Appeals Board heard the Historic Landmark Commission Case No. 001-05 at 726 E. Sixth Avenue, by Kevin Blalock, who requested approval to construct a second story addition on the house at the above address. He pointed out that Catherine A. Rockwell, a neighbor, appealed the Commission's decision citing concerns relating to a non-complying lot, the garage, the building height, and visual compatibility. Mr. Wheelwright reported that the Land Use Appeals Board upheld the Historic Landmark Commission's decision of approval by four to zero.

Mr. Ashdown inquired about the tennis bubble, which has been temporarily located in Liberty Park, by asking if the appellant had appealed to Third District Court. Mr. Wheelwright said that nothing has been brought to his attention.

Mr. LoPiccolo stated that a neighbor from across the street from the tennis bubble had appealed the Administration's determination and the Board of Adjustment heard the appeal in January of 2005. The Board of Adjustment upheld the decision of allowing the tennis bubble to be constructed. He added that the appellant had sixty days to submit an appeal to the Third District Court. Mr. LoPiccolo also indicated that he had not heard anything further regarding the tennis bubble.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Ashdown moved to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2005 meeting, after a small correction is made. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted. ”Aye”. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case No. 003-05. at 165 South 1100 East. by Harry Hoagland. requesting approval to construct a new single-family dwelling. The property is located in the University Historic District.

Ms. Jackie Gasparik presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

The following is an overview of the project:

Harry Hoagland is requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence at 165 South 1100 East. The home is located in the University Historic District in a Single and two -family (R-2) Residential District. The purpose of the R-2 zone is to “preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of single-family and two-family dwelling units.”

The proposed single-family dwelling is located at 165 South 1100 East and is situated on an approximately 7,500 square foot lot. The property has ingress/egress from 1100 East and will utilize a common driveway to access a rear yard accessory garage. The proposed design incorporates lap wood siding, sandstone and wood columns on the front elevation with wood shingle gable ends. The side and rear elevations are sided with lap wood siding. Wood bead-board soffit and wood fascia are also shown on the proposed elevations.

Wooden clad double hung windows are proposed (see elevation plan). The proposed roof material is an architectural grade asphalt shingle. The main floor plan consists of a dining, kitchen, great room, master bedroom and a study. The basement floor plan consists of a family room and possible expansion of up to two additional bedrooms, full bathroom, laundry and mechanical room. The proposed single-family dwelling is approximately 19 feet in height.

All proposed work must comply with height, yard and bulk requirements of the R-2 zoning district:

1. The minimum lot size for a single-family detached dwelling is 5,000 sq. ft.

2. The maximum building height allowed in this district is thirty feet, or two and one-half stories, whichever is less.

3. Setback requirements in this district are 4 feet on one side and ten feet on the other, and twenty 'five percent of the lot depth (not less than 15 ft. or need not exceed 20 ft.) in the rear yard. A front setback of 20% of the lot depth, but not to exceed 20 feet is also required.

4. The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty-five percent of the lot area.

The proposed single-family dwelling meets the underlying zoning requirements.

Ms. Gasparik referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District. In considering the proposal, the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) must make findings based on the standards in the following the section of the Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance and related Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the historic landmark commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the historic landmark commission and city council and is in the best interest of the city.

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width: The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facades: The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof Shape: The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure: The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: The streetscape along Eleventh East has several good examples of four-square architecture and later Victorian bungalows. These types of styles of residential architecture were popular at the turn of the 20th century and are well represented in the University District. The homes in the immediate area offer a variety of detailing and are a mix of one and, a half and two story homes. With the exception of the Tudor Revival style dwellings height and pitch at 151 South 1100 East, the homes in the immediate vicinity have shallow pitched roofs. The Arlington Place Condominiums located at 115 South 1100 East are out of scale with the streetscape, but aside from this structure the streetscape is consistent. The form, massing and scale of the architecture on this block face are consistent.

The size and mass of the proposed one-story frame structure is similar to the residential structures found on this block and throughout the University District. It is rectangular in shape, with a 26' x 44' footprint roughly 1,197 sq. ft. not including the unfinished basement.

The primary façade is approximately 19 feet in heights; with a hip roof of 7:12 pitch, which is compatible with the nearby buildings in the area. The design of the proposed single story home is a new interpretation of a bungalow type of home.

The Commission's design guidelines offer the following guidance on the scale and form of compatible new construction.

Applicable Design Guidelines.

11.4 Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale. A new building may convey a sense of human scale by employing techniques such as these:

- Using building materials that are of traditional dimensions.

- Providing a one-story porch that is similar to that seen traditionally.

- Using a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally.

- Using a solid-to-void ratio that is similar to that seen traditionally and using window openings that are similar in size to those seen traditionally.

11.5 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block. Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to buildings seen traditionally.

11.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block. The front shall include a one-story element, such as a porch. The primary plane of the front elevation should not appear taller than those of typical historic structures in the block. A single wall plane should not exceed the typical maximum facade width in the district.

11.7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district. This is an important standard which should be met in all projects.

11.9 Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings. If a building would be wider overall than structures seen historically, the facade should be divided into subordinate planes that are similar in width to those of the context.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed building is compatible in height, width and scale with other buildings on the block and within the district. The proportion of the principle façade is compatible with the surrounding primary structures.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

a. Proportion of Openings: The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades: The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections: The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Relationship of Materials: The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: The windows are vertically oriented with one over one configuration. The proposed doors consist of a single front and rear door, and double doors leading to a deck on the north elevation. The proportions of the proposed window and door openings are consistent with surrounding dwellings on the streetscape and within the district. The individual window units are not excessively large and are similar in size to others used on buildings in the district.

The front entry is emphasized by a covered porch/stoop element that breaks up the wall plane of the front facade. The porch extends 2/3 across the front elevation. The porch differs from those commonly seen with projection of an entry hall into the porch area.

The proposed construction materials are of high quality and traditional materials. The front elevation is shown with lap siding (made of wood or hardy board) and sandstone columns. The gable ends will be faced with wood shingles. The other elevations are sided with lap wood siding. Bead-board soffit and fascia are also shown on the drawings. Wooden clad double hung windows are proposed. The proposed roof material is architectural grade asphalt shingles, a material that is ordinarily acceptable for use in the historic districts. The design guidelines recommend the following with respect to the composition of principle facades.

Applicable Design Guidelines.

11.10 Use a ratio of wall-to-window (solid to void) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district. Large surfaces of glass are inappropriate in residential structures. Divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows.

11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block. Simple rectangular solids are typically appropriate.

11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Visually, the roof is the single most important element in an overall building form. Gable and hipped roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms in most residential areas. Shed roofs are appropriate for some additions. Roof pitches should be 6:12 or greater (the proposed roof pitch is 7:12). Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. They are appropriate for multiple apartment buildings, duplexes, and four-plexes. In commercial areas, a wider variety of roof forms may occur.

11.13 Design overall facade proportions to be similar to those of historic buildings in the neighborhood. The “overall proportion” is the ratio of the width to height of the building, especially the front facade. See the discussions of individual districts and of typical historic building styles for more details about facade proportions.

11.14 Keep the proportions of window and door openings similar to those of historic buildings in the area. This is an important design standard because these details strongly influence the compatibility of a building within its context. Large expanses of glass, either vertical or horizontal, are generally inappropriate on new buildings in the historic districts.

11.16 New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing. Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those used historically. They also must have a proven durability in similar locations in this climate. Metal products are allowed for soffits and eaves only.

11.17 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those found historically along the street. These include windows, doors, and porches.

11.18 If they are to be used, design ornamental elements, such as brackets and porches to be in scale with similar historic features. Thin, fake brackets and strap work applied to the surface of a building are inappropriate uses of these traditional details.

11.19 Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged. New designs for window moldings and door surrounds, for example, can provide visual interest while helping to convey the fact that the building is new. Contemporary details for porch railings and columns are other examples. New soffit details and dormer designs also could be used to create interest while expressing a new, compatible style.

11.20 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. One should not replicate historic styles, because this blurs the distinction between old and new buildings, as well as making it more difficult to visually interpret the architectural evolution of the district. Interpretations of historic styles may be considered if they are subtly distinguishable as new.

11.21 Windows with vertical emphasis are encouraged. A general rule is that the height of the window should be twice the dimension of the width in most residential contexts.

11.22 Frame windows and doors in materials that appear similar in scale, proportion and character to those used traditionally in the neighborhood. Double-hung windows with traditional depth and trim are preferred in most districts.

11.23 Windows shall be simple in shape. Odd window shapes such as octagons, circles, diamonds, etc. are discouraged.

Staff's finding of fact: The design of the proposed project is consistent with the ordinance in several areas including the materials, proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids and rhythm of entrance porch and other projections.

3. Relationship to Street.

a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;

b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually

related;

c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and

d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district.

Staff's discussion: The site plan is very traditional in keeping with the character of the district. The streetscape in the University district developed according to a grid system, which is characterized by wide streets and large blocks. The building is oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. The location of the garage to the rear of the lot is in keeping with the pattern of alleys and the character of the district. The design guidelines offer the following guidance for siting new construction:

Applicable Design Guidelines.

11.1 Respect historic settlement patterns. Site new buildings such that they are arranged on their sites in ways similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes consideration of building setbacks, orientation and open space.

11.2 Preserve the historic district's street plan. Most historic areas of the City developed with traditional grid patterns, with the exception of Capitol Hill. Historic street patterns should be maintained. The overall shape of a building can influence one's ability to interpret the town grid. Oddly shaped structures, as opposed to linear forms, would diminish one's perception of the grid, for example. In a similar manner, buildings that are sited at eccentric angles could a/so weaken the perception of the grid, even if the building itself is rectilinear in shape. Closing streets or alleys and aggregating Jots into larger properties would also diminish the perception of the grid.

11.3 Orient the front of a primary structure to the street. The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block.

Staff's finding of fact: The directional expression and front setback of the principal elevation is consistent with the district and other buildings with similar frontage on Eleventh East. The proposed project meets the intent of this standard.

4. Subdivision of Lots: The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).

Staff's finding of fact: This application has no subdivision issues.

The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City addresses accessory buildings in

Section 9:

9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure. In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for soffits. In the case of a two-car garage two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage will be unobtrusive and will not compete visually with the house. The proposed design of the garage will be lap wood siding, with wood shingle gable ends. The roof is shown with a 7:12 pitch with architectural grade asphalt shingles. As previously stated, the design and location of the proposed garage will be visually compatible with existing structures on the street, and will blend in with the existing streetscape. The roofline of the garage is similar to that of the residence, and the materials are appropriate. The garage door is a single door thus the street elevation is not overwhelmed by the presence of the garage doors.

9.3 Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure. Traditionally, garages were sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. The allowance of attached accessory structures is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Staff's finding of fact: Consistent with this design criterion, as shown on the site plan, the proposed garage is located behind the residence at the rear of the lot.

Ms. Gasparik offered the following staff recommendation: “Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends approval of the proposed project at 165 South 1100 East with the following conditions:

1. Review of the final details of the design of the proposed project including materials, as well as any other concerns or suggestions expressed by the Commission, shall be delegated to the Planning Director.

2. This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements.

If the Commission decides to deny the request, it should adopt findings supported by substantial evidence.”

Mr. Simonsen asked about the material for the driveway. Mr. Hoagland said that there are two existing Ms. Gasparik circulated a sample board of the proposed materials for the project.

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff. Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Harry Hoagland, the applicant, was present. He stated that he tried to duplicate a Bungalow and Craftsman-style in the design. Mr. Hoagland said that he was treating the project the same as a custom home. He noted that he had spoken to several neighbors who indicated they were pleased that a home was going to be constructed on the site.

Mr. Hoagland said that he would use low-impact indigenous materials for the landscaping. He mentioned that a privacy fence would also be constructed which does not show on the plans. He said that he hoped to get some of the neighbors to share the cost of hard surfacing the right-of-way that is south of the proposed building. Mr. Hoagland noted that he has met with good response on those issues. He said that he was trying to make the proposed building blend in with the neighborhood in style, colors, and landscaping and be an asset to the neighborhood.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by asking what was previously on the subject property. Mr. Hoagland said that he was told that there was a house on the lot, which burned down a number of years ago and the property has been vacant the last two or three years. He said that someone donated the land to the Catholic Church and he purchased the property from the church. Mr. Hoagland said that the property was used to hold the fill dirt when the addition was being constructed on the Newman Center on University Street. He indicated that he wanted to tear out those concrete pads and hard surface the area in concrete or asphalt. Mr. Hoagland said that it would be a benefit to everyone for snow removal, keeping the dust down, and parking. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that any fencing on the property would have to be reviewed by staff. Mr. Hoagland concurred and said that he had worked with staff before.

• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the thickness of the wall and the placement of the windows and trim in relation to the walls. Mr. Hoagland said that the final thickness of the finished wall would be about 5-Y2 to 6 inches. He said that the windows would be Kolbe style window. Mr. Hoagland said that the trim would be a 4-inch

wood trim that would match the cladding. He pointed out the 1” x 4” brick mold and the natural stone on the front columns, which would be a natural stone.

• Mr. Simonsen inquired further about the materials. Mr. Hoagland said he planned to use a smooth Hardiplank lap siding, even though it would show every imperfection in the walls. Ms. Giraud said that the smooth Hardiplank works better, rather than trying to use a siding with a manufactured wood grain. When Mr. Simonsen asked about the corners, Mr. Hoagland said that the corners would be the same 1” x 4” trim.

Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no comments from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session.

Since there was no further discussion, Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion.

First motion:

Ms. Carl moved to approve Case No. 003-05, at 165 South 1100 East, as submitted. Ms. Carl amended her motion after recommendations were made.

Final amended motion: Based on staff's findings of fact and recommendation, Ms. Carl moved to approve Case No. 003-05, at 165 South 1100 East, as submitted, with the following conditions: 1) that the applicant submits details on the windows, the wall sections, materials, and soffit material; and 2) that the applicant follow the stipulations in the staff's recommendation, which was included in the staff report. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 004-05. at 625 East 200 South. by Eric Saxey. requesting approval to construct 11 row-homes in three buildings on a single site. The property is located in the Central City Historic District.

Mr. Dansie presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

The following is an overview of the project:

Eric Saxey is requesting approval to construct eleven (11) town home units at 625 East 200 South. The property is located in the Central City Historic District. The base zoning of the property is RMF-45, the purpose of which is “to provide an environment suitable for multi-family dwellings of moderate/high density.

The project went through the Conditional Use/Planned Development process and was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on March 23, 2005. The Planned Development approval includes modifications to building setback and having more than one building on a single lot. The setback in question is at the rear; the RMF-45 zone requires a minimum twenty-five (25) foot rear yard setback and the applicant is proposing a ten (10) foot setback. Setbacks are also modified in the side yards. The request for the setback reduction was based upon the existing location of the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal, which bisects the property and cannot be built upon.

The subject property is currently the site of a vacant parking lot on a 21, 780 square foot parcel (.5acres). The site is only 66 feet wide but 330 feet deep making it difficult to develop. The site is further complicated by the fact that the Jordan Salt Lake Canal bisects the property. The Planning Commission has approved a proposed Planned Development for the site. The Planned Development allows multiple buildings and modification of setbacks to address the site issues.

The applicant is proposing a new residential complex consisting of eleven (11) town home units that will occupy three buildings. Unit number one faces onto 200 South Street. Units Two through Nine face a driveway along the west side of the property. Units Ten and Eleven face South. As proposed, the applicant is requesting that the building materials include cultured stone, stucco, fiber concrete siding with aluminum soffit/garage doors and vinyl windows. The proposed units will be sold as town homes with each unit having an individual attached garage, which will be accessed from a twenty (20) foot wide driveway off 200 South Street

All proposed work must comply with height, yard and bulk requirements of the RMF-45 zoning district unless otherwise modified through the Planned Development review process. The applicant requested that the Planning Commission modify provisions of the zoning ordinance to:

1. Allow alterations of rear yard and side yard setback; and

2. Allow more than one building on a single lot.

Mr. Dansie stated that the Historic Landmark Commission has design review authority with respect to this request and referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District. In considering the proposal, the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) must make findings based on the standards in the following section of the Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance and related Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width: The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facades: The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof Shape: The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure: The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: The adjacent neighborhood buildings are of varying widths and height, although they are generally low scale, one to three and one half story buildings. There is a mixture of single family homes, (which generally have pitched roofs) and commercial, institutional and multi-family buildings, (which have flat roofs). The 200 South Street frontage consists of single-family homes and institutional uses on the north side of the street (where the project is located). The south side of the street is occupied by a four-story condominium building and a one story retail complex. The neighboring 600 East Street has a combination of single family and multifamily uses.

The proposed development is compatible to the neighborhood in that its street presence appears similar to other single-family homes along 200 South, with a pitched roof and porch and front door facing the street. The height and width, proportion of the principal facades, roof shape and the scale of the residential structure are compatible with surrounding development along 200 South. The general mass of the other units is located behind the principal facade, along a driveway. Garages for the town homes are located on the ground level of each unit. Their access off of the driveway is designed to mask their view from the primary facade (200 South). Detached garages are not practical based upon the width of the lot. The row of homes running the depth of the lot is similar to the adjacent Hawkes Court.

The Commission's design guidelines offer the following guidance on the scale and form of compatible new construction:

Standards for New Construction.

11.7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district. This is an important standard which should be met in all projects.

11.8 The back side of a building may be taller than the established norm if the change in scale will not be perceived from public ways.

11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block. Simple rectangular solids are typically appropriate.

11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Visually, the roof is the single most important element in an overall building form. Gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms in most residential areas. Shed roofs are appropriate for some additions. Roof pitches should be 6:12 or greater. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. They are appropriate for multiple apartment buildings, duplexes, and fourplexes. In commercial areas, a wider variety of roof forms may occur.

Design Standards for the Central City Historic District:

13.27 Design new buildings to appear similar in mass to those that were typical historically in the district. If a building would be larger than those seen on the block, subdivide larger masses of the building into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to buildings seen traditionally.

13.28 Design new buildings so that they appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally on the block. Historically, most houses appeared to have a height of one, one-and-one half or two stories. A new front facade should appear similar in height to those seen historically in the block. Taller portions should be setback farther on the lot. Story heights should appear similar to those seen historically. Also, consider using architectural details to give a sense of the traditional scale of the block.

13.29 Design a new building to have a form similar to those seen historically. In most cases, the primary form of the house was a simple rectangle. In some styles, smaller, subordinate masses were then attached to this primary form.

Staff's finding of fact: The height, width, proportion of the principal facades, roof shape and the scale of the structure are visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape in this portion of the Central City Historic District. The appearance of the building from 200 South mimics the height and scale of other homes on 200 South. The mass of the buildings behind the primary facade on 200 South is similar to the adjacent Hawkes Court.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

a. Proportion of Openings: The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades: The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections: The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

Staff's discussion: The fa9ade of each unit is similar in scale and style to other residential structures in the area, with the exception of the garage on the ground level. This is a building style new to the historic district, but one that is necessitated by the small narrow lot. Detached garages or garages to the side are not physically feasible due to the small lot size. The building has multiple materials, including; fiber concrete siding, cultured stone and stucco. Roofing consists of asphalt shingles with metal roof above bay windows. Windows are proposed to be vinyl. Soffit and garage doors are aluminum.

Staff would like to discuss with the Commission and get a consensus regarding the proposed materials that have been chosen for this project. Specifically:

Windows: The proposal consists of single hung and sliding windows. Should the sliders be casement windows? Are the decorative shutters necessary?

Materials: Is it too busy/are there too many materials? Other architecture on the street of this scale also tends to have multiple materials. The exterior materials are not consistent with historic homes in the area, but are consistent with new construction and are not incompatible with the type of development.

Roofing materials: Is the metal roof above the bay windows appropriate?

The design guidelines recommend the following with respect to the composition of principal facades. The design guidelines recommend the following with respect to the composition of principal facades:

Standards for New Construction.

11.4 Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale. A new building may convey a sense of human scale by employing techniques such as these:

- Using building materials that are of traditional dimensions.

- Providing a one-story porch that is similar to that seen traditionally.

- Using a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally.

- Using a solid-to-void that is similar to that seen traditionally and using window openings that are similar in size to those seen traditionally.

11.17 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those found historically along the street. These include windows, doors, and porches.

11.21 Windows with vertical emphasis are encouraged. A general rule is that the height of the window should be twice the dimension of the width in most residential contexts.

11.23 Windows shall be simple in shape. Odd window shapes such as octagons, circles, diamonds, etc. are discouraged.

Design Standards for the Central City Historic District.

13.30 Use primary building materials that will appear similar to those used historically. Appropriate building materials include: brick, stucco, and painted wood. Substitute materials may be considered under some circumstances.

Staff's finding of fact: The relationship of materials to the surrounding structures and streetscape is consistent with the existing buildings in the general area.

3. Relationship to Street.

Staff's discussion: The structures along 200 South vary in their rhythm of spacing in relationship to each other and the street. Generally, they consist of single family homes, non residential uses, apartments, and, across the street, a large neighborhood commercial development. Several options for the layout of this site were discussed by staff with the developer. The final proposal, attempts to allow development of a difficult site while maintaining the scale and residential feel of the neighborhood. The design guidelines offer the following guidance for siting new construction.

Standards for New Construction.

11.2 Preserve the historic district's street plan. Most historic parts of the city developed in traditional grid patterns, with the exception of Capitol Hill. Historic street patterns should be maintained. The overall shape of a building can influence one's ability to interpret the town grid. Oddly shaped structures, as opposed to linear forms, would diminish one's perception of the grid, for example. In a similar manner, buildings that are sited at eccentric angles could also weaken the perception of the grid, even if the building itself is rectilinear in shape. Closing streets or alleys and aggregating lots into larger properties would also diminish the perception of the grid.

11.3 Orient the front of a primary structure to the street. The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block.

Design Standards for the Central City Historic District.

13.2 Maintain the character and scale of the side streets in the district. Many side streets, particularly the lanes, have a distinct character and scale that should be preserved.

13.22 Maintain alleys where they exist. Their modest character should be preserved.

13.23 Maintain the established alignment of building fronts in the block. In general, larger, taller masses should be setback farther from the front than smaller structures. In some cases, therefore, a setback that is greater than the median setback may be appropriate.

13.24 Maintain the rhythm established by uniform setbacks in the block. It is particularly important that the traditional spacing pattern be maintained as seen from the street. Follow the traditional building pattern in order to maintain the historic character of the street. Consider the visual impact of new construction and additions on neighbors along side yards. Consider varying the height and setback of the structure along the side yard.

13.25 Clearly define the primary entrance to the house. Use a porch, stoop, portico or similar one story feature to indicate the entry. Orienting the entry to the street is preferred. Establishing a “progression” of entry elements, including walkway, landscape elements and porch a/so is encouraged.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed development is visually compatible with the surrounding structures in terms of walls of continuity, rhythm, spacing and structures facing the street, expression of principal elevation and pedestrian improvements. Unit number One faces 200 South and presents the image of a typical single-family home regarding mass and scale, when viewed from the street.

Staff's discussion: Upon completion of the development, it is intended to be subdivided into condominium units.

Staff's finding of fact: The final condominium/subdivision will not affect historic character.

Mr. Dansie offered the following staff recommendation: “Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends approval of the proposed project at 625 East 200 South with the following conditions:

2. This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements.

If the Commission decides to deny the request, it should adopt findings supported by substantial evidence.”

Please note that the unapproved minutes of the March 23, 2005 meeting of the Planning Commission were attached to the staff report. The Planning Commission approved the project with certain conditions.

Mr. Dansie continued by stating the following: The layout of the buildings on the site would be much like Stanford Court on 400 South. The first unit will be facing 200 South. West of property is Odyssey House, east of the site is a series of one and two-story homes. Across the street is a combination of a four-story square box condominium building and the Big Lot/Chevron shopping center. The scale and look on 200 South is in keeping with the streetscape. Nine of the eleven units back yard will adjacent to the back yards of the homes on Hawks Court, which is a typical mid block street. The back yards of the last two units on the north end will be adjacent to the parking lot of a church.

• Mr. Dansie said that the most confusing issues on the project are the proposed materials.

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff.

Mr. Simonsen asked if the Historic Landmark Commission has specific guidelines regarding cultured stone. Ms. Giraud read in Section 21A.34.020(G)(10) of the zoning ordinance, “Certain building materials are prohibited including vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials.” She added that this section pertains mostly to siding material. Mr. Dansie pointed out that the entry to the Moose Lodge/Odyssey House building has stone around the entrance but it is not cultured stone.

Ms. Carl asked if the proposed structure would be within the allowable height for the zoning. Mr. Dansie said that the maximum height allowed in the zone is 45 feet and the structure would be well below that height.

Mr. Parvaz inquired about the standing seam metal roof on the proposed building. He also said that the sliding glass windows do not match the character of the historic district. Mr. Parvaz expressed concern about the shadow line of the windows.

Mr. Ashdown questioned why the Commission was considering this proposed building differently than the Emigration Court project, which is only a block and a half away in the Central City Historic District. He added that they are both new construction with very little significance.

Mr. LoPiccolo stated that he wanted to elaborate on what Mr. Dansie said about the proposed materials. He said that there had been some internal discussion on the materials: the metal roof, the shutters, the stucco, the cultured stone, and the aluminum soffits. Mr. LoPiccolo pointed out that the materials were questioned in the staff report. He added that by choice, staff would certainly have asked for casement windows, real stone, or applying additional stucco, limiting the materials to only three or four; as it stands about five or six different materials. Mr. LoPiccolo wanted the Commission to address these issues with the applicants.

Ms. Giraud stated that in terms of the zoning ordinance, the Historic Landmark Commission should review new construction to determine if it would be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape. She said that some cultured stone, in her opinion, works better than others. She said that she has seen samples that look very synthetic and some synthetics that look like real stone. Ms. Giraud said that there is no tradition of standing seam metal roofs in the historic districts. She referred to one case where that type of roof was allowed on a home that was being constructed on North West Capitol Street at the end of a dirt road and not surrounded by any historic structures. Ms. Giraud said she realized that real stone was very expensive. She suggested that the windows in the building should reinforce the historic district and the streetscape.

Responding to Mr. Ashdown's comments, Ms. Giraud said that the two structures would be very different and there are many buildings in that block and a half. She mentioned that Emigration Court will have almost 200 units and the proposed town houses will have 11 units.

Mr. Parvaz stated that the Emigration Court project was carefully reviewed. He said that he had problems with the materials that were approved. He referred to other cases reviewed by the Commission where he questioned the use of some materials. Mr. Parvaz expressed concern about the inconsistency. Mr. Parvaz queried the proposed parking stalls rather than underground parking. Mr. Dansie said that no structure is allowed of the Jordan Salt Lake Canal. He said that the canal was covered with extremely old brick, which functions as a storm water collector.

Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Eric Saxey, the applicant and general contractor, was present. Mr. Saxey introduced his partner in the project, Mr. Aaron Sadler. Mr. Sadler circulated a sample of the proposed cultured stone.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by asking if the cultured stone sample was the same color and texture that the applicants planned to use on the proposed new building. Mr. Saxey said it was very similar. He said that he was considering using a new cultured stone made by Owens Corning. Mr. Simonsen asked if the stones would be dry-stacked with no heavy mortar. Mr. Saxey said that was correct.

• Ms. Heid asked if there was a pattern to the stone. Mr. Saxey said that there was no pattern to the design of the stone.

• Mr. Parvaz questioned how the stone would round the corner of the building and how the edges would be finished. He also asked about the materials on the stairway. Mr. Saxey said that the treads of the stairway would be formed concrete with an open riser and the railing would be wrought iron. Mr. Parvaz commented that the plans were lacking in detail. Mr. Saxey said that the stairway would extend about four feet from the front of the building and would go back 8 to 10 feet from the garage corner. Mr. Parvaz asked how thick the walls would be. Mr. Saxey said that the walls would be 2” x 6” plus the thickness of the exterior material.

• Ms. Carl asked if the cultured stone would turn the corner at the stairwell. Mr. Saxey said that it would stop right at the face of the building. Ms. Carl also asked if the large windows on the front three sections would be sliders or casement windows. Mr. Saxey there would be two fixed sections and one section will slide. There was a short discussion as the Commissioners noted the various window designs on the project. Ms. Carl said that the shutter placement seemed a little bit random, and asked if there was some thought behind that configuration. Mr. Saxey said that he was trying to avoid having the building look like side-by-side duplexes. He said that he was trying to make the look vary so the project would not have a “cookie cutter” affect. Ms. Carl said she believed that the stonework should turn the corner so it would not end at the flat wall surface. Ms. Carl also asked if Mr. Saxey was required to provide accessible housing on this project. Ms. Saxey said that as far as he knew, he was not required to have the project wheelchair accessible.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons expressed his concern that the entrances disappear up into a dark cave. Mr. Saxey said that he really could not push the entry doors out any further. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the applicant considered moving the entry to ground level, then have the stairs inside the building. Mr. Saxey said that the stairway on the inside would be too inconvenient for the people living in the town houses. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked what the color of the siding would be. Mr. Saxey said that it would be the stained walnut color.

• Mr. Ashdown asked if the applicants had been in discussion with the Central City Community Council. Mr. Saxey said that they had made a presentation to the community council where it was approved.

The discussion continued. The main focal point of the discussion centered on the proposed windows. Ms. Saxey asked if vinyl casement windows would be more acceptable to the Commission. He talked about hiding the mechanism where the window closed. He referred to other projects that had vinyl-sliding windows.

• Ms. Giraud explained that the main objection to the sliders is that historic homes have different window patterns, such as single- or double-hung windows, or casements with a decorative muntin. She recognized that this application was for new construction, which made a difference. Ms. Giraud said that there was no way of breaking up the large paned glass. She said that she realized the need for egress windows.

• Mr. Simonsen inquired if the proposed windows with the rounded top were sliders as well. Mr. Saxey said those windows would be sliders with a transom. Mr. Saxey talked about the possibility of having grids on the inside of the windows. Mr. Simonsen explained the benefit of a shadow line that a window creates. Mr. Saxey did not totally agree. Mr. Simonsen said by using single-hung windows there would be a horizontal break. There was further discussion about using single-hung windows side by side rather than larger paneled sliders. Mr. Saxey expressed concern about losing the shutters. Mr. Simonsen said that he did not believe using single hung windows would affect the shutters.

• Ms. Carl asked if the applicants considered using double-hung windows, rather than the huge panes of glass in sliders in the front of the building. The question was not answered.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if the ordinance addresses sliders in a new building. Ms. Giraud said that the ordinance suggests using windows that is consistent with the streetscape and the historic district. She referred to Section 21A.34.020(H)(2(a and b) “Proportion of Openings and Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades.” Those are the main aspects that address windows. Then the guidelines go into more detail when it comes to new construction.

• When Mr. Parvaz inquired about the upper smaller windows, Mr. Saxey said he proposed to use vinyl single-hung windows. Mr. Parvaz commented that there are no window sections with the plans. He said that there was no drawing, which showed the relationship of the windows to the wall plane and nothing showing the setback of the windows. Mr. Saxey stated that frame of the windows would stick out about 1-Y2 inches and then the Hardiplank board would fit right into the side of the% inch trim. He added that the frame of the window would actually be recessed from the stone about Y2 inch.

Executive Session.

Ms. Carl stated that it might be worthwhile to have the project reviewed by the Architectural Committee (formerly called the Architectural Subcommittee). Mr. Simonsen said that the applicant could be deferred to the Architectural Committee to refine the details if it was recommended in the form of a motion.

Ms. Giraud said that the Commission could refer a case to the Architectural Committee to work with the applicant for the refinement of plans and address specific issues that were raised by the full Commission. She said that in previous years, the Architectural Subcomn1ittee could make decisions; now the application needs to be sanctioned by the full Commission.

Ms. Carl clarified that the Architectural Committee functions as a consultant where suggestions and recommendations could be made to pull the project together. She said that with a little “tweaking” the project could be much better. Ms. Carl said that she had concerns about the scale and the fact that the back facade looked terribly blank.

Mr. Ashdown said that he did not have a problem with the project. He said that it was laid out in the drawings and the materials were explained.

Mr. Simonsen said that the materials and the quantity did not seem to be problematic to him. He made a point by saying that there could be many materials and form changes in a Victorian Eclectic style of house and there are many example of metal roofs.

Mr. Parvaz said that there are guidelines about using ornamental pieces.

Mr. Simonsen stated that there are several issues that have been raised, such as the window details, the shadow lines, the setbacks, as there are a number of different window types, forms, and materials, and how the materials would be transitioned from the siding or the stone to the windows. He added that there is a question about how the corners into the entry alcoves would be wrapped. Mr. Simonsen said that it also sounds like there may be some concerns with the overall proportion of the mass of the building, although it was not noted in the staff overview. The wording of a motion was discussed. Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion.

First motion:

Ms. Carl moved for Case No. 004-05, that the Historic Landmark Commission refers the applicants to an Architectural Committee. The Committee would be tasked with advising and working with the applicants on the proportion and placement, and the type of windows proposed; the details of the windows; the details of the material transition points; the proposed ornamental elements; and the proportion and scale of the east facade. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Ms. Carl and Mr. Parvaz voted “Aye”. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Ms. Heid were opposed to the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion failed.

After a short discussion, another motion was made.

(Ms. Mickelsen was delayed and arrived at the meeting at 5:23P.M.)

Second motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 004-05 that the Historic Landmark Commission accepts the staff's findings of fact and recommendation for the construction of the town homes, as submitted, with the condition that the review of the final details of the design, materials, windows and design, transition of materials, as well as any other concerns expressed by the Commission shall be delegated to the Planning Director.

A discussion took place relative to the matters at hand. An amendment to the motion was suggested. Mr. Ashdown accepted the amendment to his motion.

Second amended and final motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 004-05 that the Historic Landmark Commission accepts the staff's findings of fact and recommendation for the construction of the town homes at 625 East 200 South, as submitted, with the condition that the review of the final details of the design, materials, windows and design, transition of materials, as well as any other concerns expressed by the Commission shall be delegated to the Planning Director. Further, in accordance with Section 11.22 of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, “double-hung windows with traditional depth and trim are preferred in most districts”, in lieu of the windows, as proposed. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Parvaz voted “Aye”. Ms. Mickelsen abstained. Mr. Christensen and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

[Please note that for clarification purposes, the name of the Architectural Subcommittee changed to the Architectural Committee in 2004.]

Case No. 005-05. at 219 E. Fourth Avenue. by Michael Lemmon. represented by Ken Pollard of Pace Pollard Architectures. requesting approval to construct a second-story addition to a single-family dwelling. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

The following is an overview of the project:

Michael Lemmon, represented by Ken Pollard, architect, is requesting approval to construct a second-story addition to the one-and-a-half story house at 219 E. Fourth Avenue. The home is located in the Avenues Historic District in an SR-1 zoning district. The zone allows single-family, two-family and twin homes as permitted uses.

According to the historic site form completed in 1979, this house was built in 1910 by Hugh W. Dougall (1872-1963), a teacher with the Utah Conservatory of Music, located at Main Street and South Temple. The site form states that the architect was W.J. Cannonville; the builders were Eardly and Ball. It was one of several homes built in this block during the 191O's, and represents the breakup of the older land holdings and replacement of older buildings.

Mr. Lemmon is now proposing a second-story addition, with approximately 410 additional square feet of space. The new space will be used for improved head room clearance for the existing upper-story space, will also accommodate an additional bathroom and bedroom, and will enlarge an existing bathroom. The existing roofline is a side-gabled roof with a 6/12 pitch and a front-gabled dormer. The addition is proposed to tie into the ridge of the existing roof and would also be side-gabled, raising the height of the ridgeline from 24'-8” to 28'-10” and creating new space on the existing rear slope of the roof. From the vantage point of Fourth Avenue, the ridgeline will be higher and further back from the street. The applicant is proposing to pull the addition in from the sides of the existing walls. The front gable will remain as is. The wall material of the addition will be square-butt, wood shingles to match the existing materials, and the frieze of the roofline will mimic that of the house. The tripartite, 16/1 double-hung windows in the gable ends will remain. Windows proposed for the new addition include a single, 16/1 double-hung window in the west elevation toward the rear of the house and on the north (rear) elevation, and two, single-pane windows in the gable ends of the west and east elevations, high on the walls, and also on the north elevation. Two skylights are proposed on the north slope of the roof.

All proposed work must comply with height, yard and bulk requirements of the SR-1 zoning district. The height of a dwelling in the SR-1 zone is 30' or 2.5 stories, whichever is less. The applicant meets this zoning requirement.

Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(G) H Historic Preservation Overlay District. In considering the proposal, the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) must make findings based on the standards in the following the section of the Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance and related Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. Staff determined that the following standards are most pertinent to this application:

G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the city: Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the historic landmark commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the city.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

Applicable Design Guidelines.

8.1 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.

Staff's discussion: The style of this house can be characterized as an Arts and Crafts bungalow. Its character-defining features include the multi-pane windows, the slope of the roof, the shingles in the gable ends, the wide eaves, the use of brackets, and the strong horizontal quality of the overall massing. These features will be retained on the house.

Staff's finding of fact: Placing the new addition to the rear of the historic structure will minimize the visual impact on the primary structure and allow the original proportions, character and details of the original house to remain prominent.

3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed.

Applicable Design Guidelines.

8.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition shall be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a differentiation between historic and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original building and the addition also may establish a more sound structural design to resist earthquake damage, while helping to define it as a later addition.

8.6 Do not construct a new addition or alteration that will hinder one's ability to interpret the historic character of the building or structure. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the building is inappropriate. An alteration that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the building is inappropriate. In addition, an alteration that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation on the historic style is inappropriate. An alteration that covers historically significant features is inappropriate as well.

Staff's discussion: Mr. Pollard set the addition in from the side walls of the building by approximately six inches. This inset of the eave lines and the massing of the proposed addition differentiates the addition from the original portion of the house. The architectural details on the addition, such as the use of the same fascia width and vertically-oriented, multi-pane windows, mimic the features seen on the house. The single-pane windows are unobtrusive and are not dominant enough to adversely affect the Craftsman-style character of the house.

Staff's finding of fact: While the proposed addition has elements that are similar to those found on the existing house, setting the roof of the proposed addition in from the original roofline differentiates the original massing and roofline of the house from the new construction. The proposed addition meets this standard.

9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

Applicable Design Guidelines:

7.1 Preserve the original roof form. Avoid altering the angle of a historic roof. Instead, maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. A/so retain and repair roof detailing.

7.3 Preserve the historic eave depth. The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and thereafter, these overhangs should be preserved. Cutting back roof rafters and soffits or in other ways altering the traditional roof overhang is therefore inappropriate.

7.4 Minimize the visual impact of skylights and other rooftop devices. The addition of features such as skylights or solar panels should not be installed in a manner such that they will interrupt the plane of the historic roof. They should be lower than the ridgeline, when possible. Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered on the rear and sides of the roof. Locating a skylight on a front roof plane is inappropriate.

7.5 When planning a roof-top addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline when possible.

8.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Setback an addition from historically important primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Keep the addition visually subordinate to the historic building. If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than the historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a “connector” to link it.

8.3 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.

8.5 Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building. For example, if the building historically had a horizontal emphasis, this orientation shall be continued in the addition.

8.7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition shall not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.

8.8 Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition. Painted wood clapboard and brick are typical of many traditional additions.

8.9 Minimize negative technical effects to original features when designing an addition. Avoid construction methods, for example that would cause vibration that may damage historic foundations. New alterations also should be designed in such a way that they can be removed without destroying original materials or features.

8.10 Use windows in the addition that are similar in character to those of the historic building or structure. If the historic windows are wood, double-hung, for example, new windows should appear to be similar to them. Depending on the detailing, clad wood or synthetic materials may be considered.

8.11 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to the scale of the historic building. An addition shall not overhang the lower floors of the historic building in the front or on the side.

8.12 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street. A minimum setback of 10 feet is recommended. Greater flexibility may be considered in the setback of a dormer addition on a hipped or pyramidal roof.

8.13 The roof form and slope of the addition must be in character with the historic building. If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition shall be similar. Eave lines on the addition shall be similar to those of the historic building or structure. Dormers shall be subordinate to the overall roof mass and shall be in scale with the historic ones on similar historic structures.

Staff's discussion: The applicant is seeking to minimize the additional space by integrating it into the existing structure and upper-story space. If the addition were to be removed at some point (admittedly an unlikely prospect), the original roof could be reconstructed on the building. While the proposal would slightly change the massing, this change would be barely discernible from the street, given the close proximity of the adjoining homes and the steep slope of this block of Fourth Avenue. The roof form will continue to be consistent with the style of the residence and allow it to remain as an example of a Craftsman home, and will maintain the existing 6/12 roof pitch. In terms of floor space, the addition is only 410 square feet, and will not overwhelm the massing and form of the house. The applicant attempts to distinguish the proposed addition from the existing home by pulling in the sides of the addition in from the sides of the existing walls and eave lines. The proposed work will not alter the existing orientation of the house to the street, nor will it change the alignment of the house within the context of the surrounding homes. The depth of the existing eave lines will not change.

The proposed windows are compatible in scale and proportion with the windows seen on the historic building. The skylights are proposed to be set on the rear slope of the roof, and thus will have no impact on the street elevation.

Staff's finding of fact: The alteration to the character of the building will be minimal to the character of the building and its relationship to the other buildings on the streetscape. The proposed design of the addition is compatible with the size, scale, massing and architectural details of the existing house. The work could be removed and the original integrity of the building would be unimpaired. The new work will be differentiated from the old and is compatible with the design of the original house.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: “Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed and further recommends that final approval be delegated to staff if any minor revisions or additional details are required by the Commission.”

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff. Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Ken Pollard of Pace Pollard Architects, representing the applicant, was present. Mr. Pollard pointed out that it states on the last page of the existing conditions of the property in the staff report, that “the extra square footage is 410 square feet.” He said that the 410 feet actually goes back to the wall. Mr. Pollard stated that the project really is not an addition; it's an extension of the upper level.

Ms. Giraud said that one of the compelling factors about this case was the fact that it is on a steep lot and the abutting properties do not have a wide-angled view of the back of the home from the street.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Ashdown said that he needed clarification regarding the roofline. Mr. Pollard pointed out on the plans the existing roofline. He added that all he had to do was shift the ridge and make a large dormer in the back, like a large shed dormer, which is in keeping with an Arts and Crafts Bungalow. Mr. Ashdown inquired if the applicant planned to match the fish scale shingles on the new extension. Mr. Pollard said that he was planning to match what are called “square back” shingles rather than “fish scale” shingles. He added that the exterior of the existing home is brick on the lower portion and square back shingles on the upper portion. In answer to another question by Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Pollard said that there would not be any new brick on the structure; the upper level is wood frame. Mr. Ashdown asked if the old square back shingles would be replaced. Mr. Pollard said that they would save as many as they can, but any damaged ones would be replaced. He commented that the owners want to keep the home in the historic style.

• Mr. Parvaz wanted to make certain that the lower part of the building would not be altered. Mr. Pollard said that two windows in the kitchen would be replaced with double-hung windows in keeping with the character of the house. He added that the kitchen and bathroom on the main level would be remodeled. Mr. Pollard said that the owners also wanted to change those two windows in the kitchen because they were not in keeping with the Arts and Crafts style that they like.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if there were any other upgrades in the house. Mr. Pollard said that they may need some painting, but the profiles, lines, or materials would not be changed.

• Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the roofing material on the new extension. Mr. Pollard said that the new shingles would match the existing asphalt shingles.

Executive Session.

Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion or a continuation of the discussion.

Motion:

Mr. Fitzsimmons moved for Case No. 005-05 that the Historic Landmark Commission approves the request to construct a second-story addition to the single-family dwelling at 219 E. Fourth Avenue, as submitted, in accordance with staff's findings of fact and recommendation. Further, that the final approval be delegated to staff unless the Commission requires any minor revisions or additional details. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 006-05, at 330 South 1200 East. by Michael Ayers. requesting to legalize changes to the roofline for a second-story addition that does not conform to the addition approved by the Historic Landmark Commission on August 1. 2001; to legalize changes made to the dormers that do not conform to the dormers approved by the Historic Landmark Commission on August 1. 2001: and to approve the proposed windows as replacements to windows that do not conform to those represented on plans presented to the Historic Landmark Commission on August 1. 2001.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

The following is an overview of the project:

Applicant Michael Ayers is requesting Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) approval to legalize changes made to the roof form and dormers that differ from the approval the HLC granted to a previous owner and applicant. The applicant is also requesting approval of proposed window replacements in order to bring the house into conformance with its earlier, historic appearance. The house, located at 330 South 1200 East, is zoned R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District. Photographs were included in the staff report.

The 1993 reconnaissance historic resource survey estimates that this house was constructed about 1890, and rates it as “contributing.” Sanborn maps for this street only go as far back as 1911, and indicate that the house existed as a one-story, brick dwelling with a small front porch or appendage on the street elevation. Salt Lake City building records state that a building permit was obtained by “H. Taufer,” in 1926, most likely not to construct the house but to remodel it. Henry Taufer, the resident of this house for many years, lived in the house from at least 1890 until the mid-1920's. He was listed in the earliest-available Polk Directory, 1890, as a stonemason and apiarist (bee-keeper). In the early teens, he changed occupations and became a florist. His brother, Louis John Taufer, a long-time City employee, lived next door at 336 South 1200 East. From 1936 to 1985, city directories list Viggo Johnson and his wife, Melba, as residing in the house. Mr. Johnson worked in the print shop of the Salt Lake Tribune. Thus, the long-term occupancy of only two households characterizes the history of this house.

The following is a chronology for the HLC, building permit, and HLC review action of the house since 1996:

1996-97 HLC Action.

In 1996, the previous owner, Kathleen Hansen, proposed adding a second-story addition. She applied for and received a special exception for an in-line addition from the Board of Adjustment on August 19, 1996. The second-story addition she proposed to the Board had a 2/12, shallow-pitched roof, with glazing in the gable end.

Ms. Hansen then began her first round of proposals for a second-story addition with the HLC. The HLC file for this address indicates that she met with the Architectural Subcommittee three times, from September 12, 1995 to April 24, 1997. On May 16, 1997, staff signed a Certificate of Approval for the following: Conceptual approval to begin working drawings of new roof and dormers. Applicant must bring back complete framing plans to staff. No stucco pop-out band at rear. Went to ASC - received approval for lower roofline and dormers.

The conceptual approval involved removing the existing roof behind the side-gabled portion of the front of the house and building a second-story with dormers. The effect would be a long mansard roof extending from the ridgeline of the side-gable to the rear wall; the mansard would be slightly visible from the street when the house was viewed directly from the street. The total height of the house would rise from 17'-6” to 23'-1.” The rear elevation would consist of a one-story frame addition with clapboard siding and an uncovered, second-story balcony.

2001 HLC Action.

Ms. Hansen's previous approval expired, and she returned to the Architectural Subcommittee with a similar proposal, designed by architect Sandy Hatch. The proposal differed from the 1997 plan, in that it was higher (24'-5”) than the previous approved addition. Ms. Hatch's plans showed a second story with a clipped gable extending straight up from behind the front part of the house. The revised plan portrayed a taller addition but left the front-side-gable section of the house intact. When the plans were submitted to the Subcommittee on July 11, 2001, the members present at the meeting expressed concern that the massing of the roof extending to the rear of the house would be excessive, and suggested lowering the pitch 2.' The plans that Ms. Hansen provided to the HLC on August 1, 2001, reflected this change. The HLC approved the proposal.

2002 Building Permit Action.

Ms. Hansen obtained a building permit (#173077) on May 21, 2002, after receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness on May 3, 2002. The plans on file in the Building Services Division showed the roofline, as was approved by the HLC on August 1, 2001. However, these plans show a line drawn from the peak of the roof pitch of the proposed addition to the side-gabled roof of the original house. The existing framing and roofline plans were drawn in between the approval and the submittal of the plan to Building Services.

On July 31, 2002, a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued for the following: Revisions to previously approved plans for an addition - raise eave height by 1'6” to accommodate additional interior headroom. Install new window in front gable to match a window found during interior demolition. Add new clad wood windows to north, south and west gables to match those used on the rest of the additions.

On August 14, 2002, Ms. Hansen returned to the Architectural Subcommittee (ASC) requesting approval to cover the rear deck with a roof with a clipped gable, and to build crickets between the front gable of the dwelling and the addition. Staff's notes from the meeting refer to a sketch drawn by architect and HLC Chair, Soren Simonsen. The plans reviewed at the ASC meeting show the east wall of the addition as rising separately from the front ridgeline of the roof, as approved by the HLC on August 1, 2001, giving credence to the assumption that the plans were indeed altered between HLC review and the obtaining of a building permit. The ASC approved the cricket and the cover over the rear deck, and accordingly, staff issued a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a cover with a clipped gable over the rear deck.

Action on House Following HLC Approval.

At some point, Ms. Hansen's contractor began working on the building. Windows that did not conform to the approved plans were installed, and the sizes of the original openings were altered. Ms. Hansen declared bankruptcy, and Community First Bank is now the owner. No work has occurred on the house for at least the last two years, leaving the house in a disheveled and blighted appearance.

The applicant, Mr. Michael Ayers, would like to purchase the house from the bank and finish construction. He is requesting that the HLC approve the altered roofline and dormers. He is proposing to install aluminum clad wood windows that conform to the original appearance of the house and to what was approved by HLC in 2001. His request includes the following:

a. Approval of the changes to the roofline that do not conform to the HLC approval of August 1, 2001 (HLC Case No. 017-01);

b. Approval of the enlargement of the dormers from the original HLC approval of August 1, 2001 (HLC Case No. 017-01); and

c. Approval to replace the windows that were installed after the HLC approval of August 1, 2001 (HLC Case No. 017-01). The current windows are inconsistent with the 2001 approval. The light pattern (single-light sliders as opposed to multi-pane double-hung windows), the relationship between the wall plane and window, the material of the installed windows, and the size of the openings are inconsistent with the approved plans.

Mr. Ayers is particularly concerned about receiving approval of the roof and the dormers, as these items would be most costly to reverse. According to the building inspector assigned to this area, the living space on the second story at the east end of the house was never indicated on the plans approved by the City (Permit No. 173077- May 21, 2002). Because of the omission of this space on the plans, no engineering calculations were provided. The drywall in this area will have to be removed, so that a structural engineer can inspect the framing to determine if it meets load requirements.

Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District. In considering the proposal, the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) must make findings based on the standards in the following the section of the Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance and related Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. Staff determined that the following standards are most pertinent to this application:

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the city.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

Applicable Design Guidelines:

Staff's discussion: Although the original roofline of the house has been compromised, particularly the side-gabled portion at the front, much of the appearance of the house as a late-Victorian era house remains. The stucco material, the deep eaves, the front cross gable, and the rhythm of the single door flanked by windows (although admittedly the replacement windows are out of character with the house), would continue to contribute to the character of the house. It is fortunate that the eave lines of the side-gabled block are evident, allowing an observer to accurately discern how the form of the house evolved. The dormers, while more massive than those originally approved by HLC, are not overwhelming when seen from the street.

Staff's finding of fact: If the HLC allows the changes to the roofline and the dormers to remain, several of the historically important features of the house will remain in place. These features include the stucco material, the deep eaves, the front cross gable, and the rhythm of the single door symmetrically flanked by windows. The applicant's request to the HLC to approve the dormers and the second-story addition would meet this standard.

Applicable Design Guidelines:

Staff's discussion: The retention of the pitch of the side-gable eave line, and the fact that the crickets are recessed from the wall of the addition and the original house, provide the ability to perceive the original outline of the house. The second story, while disrupting the ridgeline of the side gable, rises toward the rear of the house. As stated in the previous standard, several of the character-defining features remain, or can be rectified.

Staff's finding of fact: The dormers and second-story addition clearly read as a later, non-original alteration to the house. The applicant meets this standard.

6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of mission architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects.

Applicable Design Guidelines:

3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a primary facade. Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character-defining facade will negatively affect the integrity of the structure.

3.4 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. Reducing an original opening to accommodate a smaller window or increasing it to receive a larger window are inappropriate measures.

3.5 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should a/so be double-hung, or at a minimum appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades.

3.6 Match the profile of the sash and its components, as closely as possible to that of the original window. A historic wood window has a complex profile--within its casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. The profiles of wood windows allow a double-hung window, for example, to bring a rich texture to the simplest structure. In general, it is best to replace wood windows with wood on contributing structures, especially on the primary facade. Non-wood materials, such as vinyl or aluminum, will be reviewed on a case by-case basis, and the following will be considered: will the original casing be preserved? Will the glazing be substantially diminished? What finish is proposed? Most importantly, what is the profile of the proposed replacement window?

3.7 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on key character-defining facades. However, a substitute material may be considered in secondary locations if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile and finish.

Staff's discussion: It is the inappropriate window treatment that the staff finds to be the most egregious violation of the previous HLC approval. Fortunately, the replacement of the windows should be the easiest and most probable of the violations to reverse. The HLC approved windows that would be aluminum clad, recessed deeply from the plane of the wall, and whose muntin profile and configurations would replicate that of the original house. Although aluminum clad wood windows depart from the original use of wood, staff has found that they can be an acceptable replacement if the other components of the window openings are treated carefully.

Mr. Ayers has provided a window schedule and elevations showing an intention to reverse the mistakes of the previous owner, to a large extent. He intends to use Kolbe and Kolbe, simulated light, aluminum clad. The table below summarizes the windows that were approved, those that were installed, and those that are proposed for replacement. (see case file records)

Basement windows include four-light configurations (M) and a slider on the north elevation (N). None of these will be or are visible from the street.

The applicant, for the most part, is attempting to replace the unacceptable windows with those that match the original, with the exception of the glass block for the bathroom areas on the north elevation. He is also willing to repair the damage that has been done to the historic integrity of the house by the prior owner's alterations to the size of the window openings themselves. He has provided a wall section indicating that the windows will be placed back into the wall, in order to provide the earlier visual relief between the wall surface and the window. The aluminum clad, Kolbe and Kolbe windows, with Muntins no wider than 7/8,” should be an adequate replacement window. Staff would entertain other window manufacturers if for some reason the Kolbe and Kolbe window are not acceptable to the applicant.

Staff's finding of fact: The applicant is willing to undo the previous window deviations from the original plans. Pending improved graphic representation of the windows elevations, staff finds that the applicant meets this standard, with the exception of the large windows on the south elevation noted as

''D.”

Applicable Design Guidelines:

7.4 Preserve the historic eave depth. The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and thereafter, these overhangs should be preserved. Cutting back roof rafters and soffits or in other ways altering the traditional roof overhang is therefore inappropriate.

7.5 When planning a roof-top addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline when possible.

8. 7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition shall not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.

8.8 Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition. Painted wood clapboard and brick are typical of many traditional additions.

Staffs discussion: The original roof form, obviously, has not been preserved, and while the house could be rebuilt to its previous appearance, it is unlikely that this will ever happen. As stated earlier in this staff report, the side-gabled front half of the house continues to be evident since the eave lines can be seen. The second-story and rear additions at least double the size of the original house, but they are kept to the back and do not overwhelm the front of the house. While the roof form and slope approved by HLC in 2001 were in keeping with the historic character of the house, the form and slope of the second-story addition are consistent with the historic building. The orientation and alignment of the dwelling remain the same. The dormers are larger than those approved originally, but their placement on the side walls and the constricted view of them on this narrow lot insure that they are not a dominant feature when the house is viewed from the street.

Stucco is proposed for the walls of the second-story addition, and this material will be compatible with the house. The use of horizontal siding for the rear addition is consistent with the materials found on and approved for appendages on rear elevations. The windows that are currently installed in the house detract from the home's historic and architectural character, but this issue is covered under the analysis pertaining to Chapter 21A.34.020{G)(6).

Staff's finding of fact: With the exception of the existing windows, staff finds that the second-story roof and rear additions, including the dormers, are in accordance with this requirement.

Ms. Giraud pointed out that the Building Inspector put a Certificate of Non-Compliance on the house because the framing for the upstairs bedroom was not inspected and had already been dry walled so there is no structural assessment for the framing that occurred because it was not shown on the plans.

Ms. Giraud said that there are many issues related to this project. She added that most of them are outlined in a letter she wrote to Mr. Ayers dated September of 2004, a copy of which accompanied the staff report.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: “Staff recommends that the HLC legalize the departure of the massing and form of the roof and the dormers from what the HLC approved in 2001. Although the original roof form has not been preserved, the side-gabled front half of the house continues to be evident, the second-story and rear additions are kept to the back and do not overwhelm the house from the street, and the form and slope of the second-story addition are consistent with the historic building. The dormers are larger than those originally approved, but their placement on the sidewalls insure that their appearance does not dominate the roof form. Regarding the windows, staff recommends that the HLC approve the following:

1.That the windows be a wood material; a wood window clad with aluminum, or Fibrex {a composite of wood fibers and thermoplastic polymer, as in Renewal by Anderson);

2.The proposed installation of window A, as noted on the attached schedule, on the east side of the elevation;

3. The proposed installation of windows B, E, F, G, L, M and N, as noted on the attached schedule, on the south and north elevations;

4. That windows C, as noted on the attached schedule, the casements in the gable ends and dormers, be double hung if egress can be met;

5. That windows H, I, and J, as noted on the attached schedule, be replaced with one-over-one double or single-hung windows as indicated on the original plans;

6. That the windows noted as Don the schedule be denied, as they are inconsistent with the character of the house and have no association with the historic integrity of the house; and

7. That no building permit be issued to commence work until the staff is presented with elevation plans no smaller in scale than 1/8” per foot; that the original size of the openings and the size of the openings today be imposed on the drawings; that the type and model of window proposed for use with specifications that provide the width of the Muntins, and a section that indicates not only how far recessed the new windows will be but also illustrates replacement brick mold profiles, and that the sills be reinstalled to match those that were removed. Furthermore, that this detail be indicated on the elevations, and that the applicant returns to the full Commission to have the elevations with the appropriate window detailing approved.”

Ms. Giraud mentioned a door that had been removed going into the kitchen and family room, and that the applicant would like to add a door, which does not show on the plans. She added that there were many things that needed to be worked out. Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Ayers is not interested in purchasing the property out of the bankruptcy situation from the bank if he has to bear the expense of tearing off the entire roof.

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff.

Mr. Ashdown inquired how the addition merges with the main body of the house. Ms. Giraud said that it is not an ideal situation. She indicated that the previously approved plan respected the original appearance of the house to a greater degree than what was eventually built by the previous applicant. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission has approved other additions that tied into the roofline of structures. Ms. Giraud stated that the “selling point”, in terms of approving the existing roofline was that the eave line and the shape of the original side gable portion of the house are still very evident. She added that she did not believe the roof structure is overbearing from the street and completely obliterating the original portion of the house. Mr. Simonsen said that was his impression as well.

Mr. Ashdown asked if the only things the Commissioners were reviewing at this meeting is the roof height, or are the windows included. Ms. Giraud stated that the Commission should be reviewing the roof, the dormers, and the windows.

Ms. Giraud noted that staff's main concern is that the Commission offers the applicant assistance on preparation of details that will get the windows and the wall openings back where they need to be.

Mr. Parvaz inquired if the glass block windows were typical in historic buildings. He expressed concern because they did not exist in the original building. Mr. Parvaz believed the windows at that location were double-hung windows on the previous plan. Ms. Giraud said that glass block windows were not typical in historic buildings, but they would be on the side elevations toward the rear and not prominently seen. She added that glass block windows have been allowed previously. She thought the applicant would be open to other suggestions.

Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Michael Ayers, the applicant, was present. He stated that he had been working with staff for several months trying to get everything in compliance. He said he would like to make the home nice and back to its original splendor. Mr. Ayers said that the roof height is the main issue. He stated that he hoped the Con1mission would approve the roof and the dormers. He pointed out that the dormers are on the side elevations and could not be seen from the street. Mr. Ayers agreed that the windows are unsightly and he said that he is willing to replace them with new windows that are appropriate. He also agreed to enlarge some of the window openings to coincide with the original plans. Mr. Ayers said that he would like to keep the sunroom windows on the back elevations and would paint the trim to match the new windows he would be installing.

Mr. Ayers noted that he grew up in the neighborhood and plans to live in the home. He said that he had spoken with several of the neighbors who indicated that they did not have a problem with the aesthetics of the structure; they just want to see the house finished.

Mr. Ayers pointed out that he is working with an architect and could provide more professional drawings if the Commission requested them.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Simonsen questioned the windows in the sunroom, as Mr. Ayers pointed them out on the plans. Mr. Ayers said that most of them are single pane and some are casement windows. He indicated that he would like to avoid the cost of replacing those since they are not visible from the street. Mr. Simonsen pointed out the tie rods and asked about their function. Mr. Ayers believed that the entire house had been reframed and the tie rods tied the framing to the upstairs for seismic reasons. He said that the metal tie rods would have to be covered up.

• Ms. Mickelsen inquired how the applicant planned to finish the exterior upstairs walls. Mr. Ayers said that the exterior walls would be stucco. He noted that siding had been installed on the back of the house. Mr. Ayers indicated that he would do whatever necessary to restore the house to its original look. He talked about consulting with the contractor who suggested stuccoing the lower part and using siding on the upper half of the house. Mr. Ayers said that he probably would stucco the entire exterior.

Mr. Dennis Guy-Sell, Chair of the East Central Community Council, stated that he was concerned with the massing of the structure. He said that it is no longer the small house that it once was. He said that he understood that the roofline would not change. He mentioned the letter of September of 2004, which said that there had not been an inspection of the upstairs. He said that he did not see anything in the chronology in the staff report that said the inspection was performed. Mr. Guy-Sell stated that in the February of 2005 letter Mr. Ayers wrote to Ms. Giraud it said that permits would approve the mechanical inspection as is, which is interesting; it sounds like nothing was done. He indicated that on the south side of the house, there is a door that comes out and if steps are put on the outside, it would restrict access down the driveway to the garage. Mr. Guy-Sell stated that from a preservation standpoint, he believed a complete inspection is warranted before anything is approved, if the construction is not up to code.

Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, said that she had watched the “remuddling” on this house for the last nine years. She commented on the very thorough staff report that was provided. Ms. Cromer addressed the windows by saying that it was very important, because of the complicity of this house historically, that those windows are located within the wall space accurately and added that it would take someone with a preservation background to accomplish that task. She encouraged the Commission to reference that front to back interior to exterior placement of the windows so they have the appropriate reveal on the outside as well as on the outside of the house. Ms. Cromer said that stuccoing an historic house is one of the hardest things to get right. She continued by saying that it is critical that the stucco has character and texture that is appropriate to the age of the house; it would not have been smooth. She added that because the design of the house is so simple, the detailing of the surfaces, the textures, the reveals, and the depth becomes important. Ms. Cromer indicated that she just used glass block on a window in a house that she owns because it was a compromise to what was there. She added that if the tub is not in front of the window, then she did not think that the glass block should be allowed because it is not appropriate for the age of the building.

Mr. Willy Littig, a concerned citizen, said that he is a former member of the Historic Landmark Commission. He indicated that he attended the Historic Landmark Commission and Architectural Subcommittee meetings with the former architect, Sandy Hatch, where this project was reviewed. He said that they worked hard to differentiate the new section from the old part of the house. He also said that the original windows were to be double-hung, true divided lights in the upper and lower windows. Mr. Littig said that the way the addition was constructed it overwhelms the original small house. He added that it is unfortunate that the addition was not built according to the original approved plans because there are probably engineering issues that would need to be addressed before approving this project. He suggested scaling back the size of the dormers. Mr. Littig also recommended using stucco on the lower portion of the building and using an appropriate siding material for the top portion of the building so the building would not appear so overwhelming. He added that by using the appropriate material for the soffits and fascia could change the appearance of the house. Mr. Littig believed the project should be reviewed the Architectural Committee to try to resolve the problem areas before final approval is given.

Mr. Creed Haymond said that he is a neighbor to the house in question. He also complimented staff on the comprehensive staff report on “the nine-year mess”. Mr. Haymond said that for the most part, he agreed with staff's recommendation. He said that he would not like to compromise on the roofline and the dormers because of financial consideration; however the house has been in a state of disorder for over nine years. Mr. Haymond said that the one thing that should be changed is the front elevation; it should be constructed the way it was approved in 2001. He said that an unplanned, undocumented, unapproved, room was added to the front of the second floor. He objected to the roofline in its current condition. Mr. Haymond expressed concern that homeowners may feel that they could do anything they wanted to the front of their houses in the historic district, if the house is not changed back to the original design. In conclusion, Mr. Haymond said that he did not believe the Historic Landmark Commission should “bow” to the needs of the applicant.

Upon hearing no additional comments from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session.

Ms. Mickelsen said she needed to have advice from the architects on the Commission as to the difficulty of tearing off the roof and constructing the addition that was originally approved. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that it would depend on how much money one would have. Mr. Simonsen agreed that anything could happen with money.

Mr. Fitzsimmons questioned if the Historic Landmark Commission would have approved the project originally if the project had a higher profile. Ms. Giraud indicated that the Commission in 2001 was not pleased with the height of the roofline at that time. Ms. Mickelsen said that they worked hard on the front gable.

The discussion continued regarding the roofline and suggestions were given that would possibly resolve the issue.

It was a general consensus of the Commission that the public hearing should be reopened so the applicant could address additional concerns expressed by the Commission. Mr. Simonsen reopened the public hearing.

Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if the applicant had peeled off the dry wall to have an inspection made. Mr. Ayers stated that because he did not own the property at this point, he did not peel off the dry wall. He said that he wanted to wait to see what the Historic Landmark Commission was going to do.

Ms. Carl concurred that the applicant did not know how the structure was framed. Mr. Ayers said that he did not because the dry wall went up before it was inspected.

Mr. Fitzsimmons suggested that part of the roof could be trimmed back and explained how it could be done. Mr. Ayers said that as long as the entire roof did not have to be removed, he was willing to do what would be more aesthetically acceptable. However, he added that the room upstairs was very nice and if the roofline is tapered, it might make the room unusable.

Mr. Simonsen also made some suggestions how the roofline could be changed. Since the Commission had no additional questions for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen reclosed the public hearing and returned to the executive session portion of the meeting.

Mr. Ashdown inquired if there was any consideration of putting the cricket back and defining that second roofline. He added that he noticed it was not in staff's recommendation. Ms. Giraud said that was not considered and said that she “would be happy if the windows were put back”.

Ms. Mickelsen said that she had another issue and that was to make the addition look like something new by having a contrasting exterior surface than the lower level. Mr. Simonsen said that it clearly appears that the ground floor will have to be re-stuccoed and referred to Ms. Mickelsen's comment about differentiating between the new and the old sections. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that there are ways to handle the seismic belt connections (tie rods). Ms. Giraud said that stucco was originally approved for the exterior of the addition, so it is up to the applicant to present to the Commission what he wants to do.

Mr. Ashdown wondered if the Commission should only consider the dormers, the roofline, the height, and the windows. He thought it was very preliminary at this point to discuss materials.

Ms. Giraud said that the other concern about re-stuccoing would be to make sure that the fascia comes off and the relationship between the eave line and the wall is as authentic as possible and that is what she wanted to see if the finished coat of stucco is applied to

cover those reinforcement belts (tie rods).

Ms. Heid said that in South Carolina no one attempts to hide the reinforcements because they are part of the history of the homes. She said that stuccoing around them might be more difficult than stuccoing over them. Ms. Heid did not feel they were necessarily unsightly.

Ms. Simonsen said that the Commission should offer as much guidance as possible regarding the issues at hand such as the roofline height, dormers, windows, and re-stuccoing the ground floor level which was not proposed in the initial application. The discussion continued on matters related to the project.

Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion.

Motion:

Mr. Fitzsimmons moved for Case No. 006-05 at 330 South 1200 East that the Historic Landmark Commission accepts staff's findings of fact and recommendations for the following: 1) to legalize the departure of the massing in the form of the roof with the exception that the cross dormer be restored as designed by Sandy Hatch, architect, in the 2001 plans, as much as possible; 2) that the Historic Landmark Commission accepts the departure from the dormers as is; 3) that staff recommendations regarding the windows be followed and subsequent planning as stated in the staff report; 4) that the stucco on the first floor exterior be restored or re-stuccoed; 5) that the applicant might consider other materials for the exterior on the second floor, however the Historic Landmark Commission recognizes that stucco was approved in the 2001 drawings; 6) that no building permit be issued to commence work until the staff is presented with elevation plans as written in the staff report; and 7) the final approval would be given by staff, unless staff believes there is a need for the project to return to a Historic Landmark Commission for final approval. Ms. Carl seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Mickelsen suggested discussing at a future meeting how situations like the project that was just reviewed, where the approved plans were not followed, can be avoided. She added that there is a strong need for more communication between the Historic Landmark Commission and the building inspectors.

Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Administration is concerned about the lack of coordination between the happenings in the field and happenings in this building. He added that both the Planning Division and Building Services Division (Permits Office) puts much effort in making certain that plans are developed adequately, and the permits issued; but the system seems to fall apart afterwards. Mr. Wheelwright mentioned that Mr. Zunguze was very much aware that problems exist. He noted that now with Mr. Zunguze as the Director of Community Development, who controls both divisions there may be some opportunities for the resolution of these inner-division coordination kinds of issues. Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that he believed the problems have been pinpointed; now the solutions have to be determined and then implement those policies. He said that the building inspectors are not necessarily looking for people who are building without building permits; they are kept busy responding to the permit appointments that have been scheduled.

Ms. Giraud mentioned that bankruptcy further complicated things in the case just reviewed. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission could draft a letter, which could include the comments made at this meeting and request that these matters continue to be explored.

Mr. Wheelwright said that the Planning Division is still a few months away from getting a new Planning Director and Mr. Zunguze is trying to “wear both hats” (Planning Director and Director of the Community Development), and he and the staff are overwhelmed with current work right now. He added that when the Planning Division is fully staffed again, there would be a renewed effort to resolve these problems.

Ms. Giraud indicated that it was not only the Historic Landmark Commission cases; there are problems for anyone who works with any kind of construction in the Planning Division. Mr. Wheelwright stated that some people recognize where the flaws are within the system and then take advantage of it.

The discussion continued regarding the existing coordination problems. Adjournment of the meeting.

Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Heid moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:45P.M.