August 18, 2004

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 Pete Ashdown, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, Janice Lew, Soren Simonsen, and Doug Wheelwright.

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

Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.

Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.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 meeting 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 Commissioners indicated that they had visited the sites.

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 said that Mr. Zunguze was on vacation this week, and Mr. Wheelwright had nothing further to report.

REPORT FROM THE CHAIR

Mr. Simonsen said that there was one more iten1 that needed to be added to the "Other Business" section of the meeting. He said that he was in a meeting last week with Mr. Zunguze, Planning Staff, and Mr. Prescott Muir, Chair of the Planning Commission. Mr. Simonsen added that the Commission needed to appoint a special architectural committee to work jointly with Planning Commission, Planning Staff, and others to facilitate the process for a project at the St. Mark's Cathedral on 100 South.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Rowland moved to approve the minutes of the August 4, 2004 meeting, as amended. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown abstained. Ms. Heid was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case No. 016-04. at 415 So. Douglas Street, by Suzanne Marelius requesting approval to construct a three-car carport in the rear yard. The property is located in the University 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. Mr. Dansie circulated photographs of a sample carport and the rear yard of the property.

The following is an overview of the project:

Ms. Suzanne Marelius, who resides in the adjacent house to the north, is requesting approval to construct a three-car carport in the rear yard of the property at 415 South Douglas Street. The primary structure on this lot is a contributing structure, originally constructed as a single-family dwelling. The property is zoned R-2, Duplex Residential District, and is located in the University Historic District.

According to the historic site form completed in 1980, George Whitaker constructed the main residence in about 1892. The physical evidence inside the primary building, such as the lack of foundation on the enclosed shed porch and northern one room addition, and the 1911 Sanborn map indicate that the house was probably expanded sometime before 1911.

In 2003, the applicant constructed a one-story addition, with approximately 870 additional square feet of space to the rear. The recent construction replaced several additions built subsequent to the initial construction. The applicant restored the front portion of the structure, including the porch.

The applicant provided a differing carport design when receiving the Historic Landmark Commission approval for these previous modifications to the main structure. However, the minutes from the meeting state that the carport was specifically not a part of that approval. The proposed new carport is intended to continue the adaptation and reuse of the home.

Based upon the policies adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission for administrative approvals in 2000, staff decided to refer this case to the full Commission because it is a carport associated with a contributing structure.

The proposed building would be 21'-0" x 27'-0", with three open parking bays. The proposed posts of the carport would be vinyl clad steel. The proposed roof material would be steel roofing. The proposed structure would be located at the rear of the property, four feet away from the rear lot line, which abuts a public alley. Access to the parking area would be from the existing alley.

Mr. Dansie stated that the pad itself would be three feet from the neighboring property to the north, but the posts would be twelve feet from the neighboring property. He said that the overhang of the carport would be four feet from the rear property line but the posts would actually be about five and a half feet from the rear property line.

Mr. Dansie stated that in considering the proposed carport, the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based on section 21A. 34.020(H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure:

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing 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 subject property is one of the many contributing buildings left on the block. The proposed location of the carport is behind the primary structure, and has little, if any, visibility from the street. It is very similar to other multi-car carports that the Historic Landmark Commission has approved, such as the carports at 478-482 North Fourth Avenue (November 13, 2002), 331 South 600 East (July 7, 2004), and 258 West 400 North (February 27, 2002). Its height and width, proportions, and scale would be subordinate to the primary structure, and would be compatible to other carports and garages along the alley.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

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 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 proposed carport would be located to the rear of the house, and would relate more to the adjacent carports along the alley and the service areas of the adjoining properties. With this in mind, staff finds that the proposed steel construction of the carport would not interfere with the historic character of the primary structure. Staff does not have an issue with the proposed metal roof, because the carport is an accessory structure, barely visible from the street, and will not be readily seen from other vantage points on thoroughfares traversed by the public.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

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 and finding of fact: The proposed carport would be located on the alley at the interior of the block, and would not be visible from Douglas Street. The standards are not applicable.

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 discussion and finding: No subdivision is proposed; thus this standard does not apply.

The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, adopted in 1999 by the Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council, also address accessory buildings in Sections 9 and 12. One guideline in Section 9 addresses preserving existing historic accessory buildings where feasible, and another requires garages to be detached structures in most cases. The third deals with the details of constructing a new garage.

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.

The standards in Section 12 address the location and design of parking areas:

12.10. Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multi-family uses, shall not be visually obtrusive. Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit. An alley should serve as the primary access to parking, when physical conditions permit. Parking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists.

12.11. Avoid large expanses of parking. Divide large parking lots with planting areas. Large parking areas are those with more than five cars.

12.12. Screen parking areas from view of the street. Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas shall be screened from adjacent lots and the street. Fences, walls, and plantings, or a combination of these, should be used to screen parking.

Staff's finding of fact: While the materials and design of the carport are not visually compatible with the house, it would be unobtrusive and simple in design, construction, and mass. It is not a large parking site and its access is from an interior of the block alley. It would not visible from Douglas Street and barely visible from 1200 East Street.

Mr. Dansie offered the following staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application, based upon staff's findings that the project substantially complies with the applicable standards of the ordinance and adopted design guidelines, and subject to the following conditions: This approval is for design only. All other City requirements must be met prior to obtaining a building permit. If any substantial changes are required as a result of other City requirements, staff shall refer the proposal back to the full Commission for final review."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.

Mr. Christensen inquired if there has been a concern that this kind of structure would be noisy in a residential district because of the big expanse of metal roof. He talked about a hailstorm hitting the metal, which could become very piercing.

Mr. Dansie said that the issue had not been discussed. He mentioned that there are other carports along the alley with varying roofs but did not know whether any had a corrugated metal roof or not. Mr. Christensen stated that sound is something the Commission is concerned about, especially in a quality neighborhood.

Mr. Ashdown said that he was troubled with not being concerned that the garage would not be visible from Douglas Street. He inquired if that would open the door for other issues not being visible, thus no concern.

Ms. Giraud reported that there has been more leniency with projects when they were in the back yard. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission has allowed several carports, which have been at the rear of the property and not visible from the street. Ms. Giraud said that streetscape is one of the most driving forces for any project.

Mr. Dansie spoke of the variety of carports and garages along the subject alley. He said that some fit better into an historic neighborhood, such as those made of classical wood, but others are made of cement block and a variety of materials. Mr. Dansie added that there was no consistency in the group of carports and garages.

Ms. Mickelsen commented that the alleyway is used as a "street" and has its own character. She said that the proposed carport would be visible from 400 South Street because the house is the second one from the corner. Ms. Giraud stated again that it would not be visible from Douglas Street.

Ms. Rowland remarked that she also was concerned with the visibility issue. She said that it would have to be noted in the motion that this particular project would not be visible from the street or homes in the immediate vicinity. Ms. Rowland said that there could be many places where a rear addition or carport would be visible from the street. She pointed out that areas such as the Avenues or Capitol Hill where "weird" configurations exist, there might be other houses looking right onto it from above. Ms. Rowland said that there would be a difference if there were houses facing the alley. She added that the Historic

Landmark Commission's decision needed to be clear.

Mr. Christensen stated, "Certainly no one would argue that a carport looks appropriate in an historic district. It clearly is a jarring look."

Ms. Mickelsen said, "There are carports, and then there are carports." She said that the Commission has seen some projects where there was an attempt made to at least soften the modernistic approach, but this proposal has not made any such attempt. Mr. Christensen agreed and continued by saying that some would have cladded steel columns, brackets, moldings and trim, and a pitched roof.

Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if the six-foot high block wall in the back would stay or if the applicant planned to remove it. Mr. Dansie said that he did not know and suggested asking the applicant. He also talked about the big tree, the screened wall, and other objects in the rear yard, which would prevent the proposed carport to be built elsewhere. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the wall was stable because it looked like it had been "chewed off' on the end.

Mr. Simonsen thought it would be a good idea to continue this discussion in the executive session portion of the meeting and asked if there were additional comments regarding staff's findings of fact. Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Ms. Suzanne Marelius, the applicant, was present. She said that she was involved with the Historic Landmark Commission process with an earlier project in January 2003 when she received permission from the Commission to remodel the front part of the house and permission to demolish the sheds in the rear yard. Ms. Marelius said that the carport would replace a big shed and she wanted to make the structure as simple as possible. She mentioned that there was nothing very elaborate going on there. Ms. Marelius said that the metal material was not her favorite either.

Ms. Marelius said that the back yard is terraced and levels of retaining walls with plantings will be constructed. She said that she wanted to change the masonry wall to make it compatible with the retaining walls. Ms. Marelius mentioned that this would be a long-time project.

Ms. Marelius said that the carport would be a simple structure similar to others in the alley. She added that it would be useful to get the cars off the street. Ms. Marelius said that there was a broad range of sheds and other structures on the alley.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by inquiring about the surface on the ground. Ms. Marelius said that it would be concrete with a little driveway piece connecting to the alley. She said that she had discussed the project with her neighbor and her neighbor would like to have some curbing adjacent to her property where she has gravel for drainage, which looks very nice. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the applicant planned any areas for storage. Ms. Marelius said not at this point. She said that one would be able to see through the proposed carport and eventually she would like to fill in the space with storage cabinets on top of the retaining wall. She asked if she would need approval from the Historic Landmark Commission to fill in that space. Ms. Giraud said that she would but it could be done administratively by staff. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the pillars on her front porch, which has no relation to the carport. Ms. Marelius said that they were not finished. She said that she wanted the pillars to look like her neighbor's and they do not. Ms. Marelius said that she now has a different contractor and he would make the change and put in more appropriate pillars with a taper. Ms. Mickelsen said that she did not think the pillars were the typical shape for a house of that age. Ms. Marelius said that she would like to have a copy of the tax photo she saw where it looked like the porch was remodeled sometime in the 1920s. Ms. Giraud said that the file regarding the porch was in the office. She invited the applicant to review the plans for the porch restoration with staff, which could be approved administratively. The discussion continued regarding the porch rehabilitation. Ms. Marelius explained the materials that were proposed to use as well as the design of the columns, railing, and banister.

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.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there was any discussion regarding staff's findings.

Mr. Christensen agreed with Ms. Rowland and said that if the Historic Landmark Commission approved this project, it should be recognized as an exception with special circumstances rather than the rule. He said that he would not like seeing carports such as the one proposed "sprouting up" all over the historic districts. Mr. Christensen said that it would be appropriate to fully explain that there was already a variety of garages and carports along the alley and the idea that there were no houses facing the alley.

Ms. Mickelsen questioned the overhang of the proposed carport. Mr. Dansie said that there would be a nine-foot overhang on the north side of the carport, and then on the alley side there would be approximately a one and one-half foot overhang. Mr. Dansie indicated that the zoning code requires accessory buildings to be at least ten feet away from a neighboring principal structure or a neighboring garage. He said that the ten feet is measured from the support, not the overhang, therefore a garage with full walls would not be allowed in the same location. He added that the project would meet all the zoning codes. There was a short discussion as the site plan was reviewed once more.

Ms. Rowland said that she has seen a few carports that have siding on one or two sides with a pitched roof, which makes them look a little less industrial.

Mr. Ashdown expressed his concern that the Commission was having more of a problem with the aesthetics of the proposed carport than if it would comply with the standards in the ordinance, unless there was some section that it would not meet.

Ms. Mickelsen read from the staff report, as stated in the guidelines, "Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure while the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly."

Mr. Simonsen stated, "That is the finding that we struggle with the most." He added that the challenge is that these standards are most applicable to a storage shed, a garage, or other outbuildings rather than a carport. Ms. Giraud said that writing a staff report like this is difficult because there are not enough components in a carport to tie it into the guidelines or the standards in the ordinance.

Mr. Ashdown believed that one reason why the Commission was reviewing this project was because the carport would be a larger structure and built on a foundation, rather than something purchased at Home Depot that could be erected on a temporary basis.

Ms. Giraud said that the carport is an accessory structure large enough to hold three cars that will be constructed on a property associated with a contributing building. She talked about another carport that was constructed by the same company, as the one proposed, on 400 North for Signature Books. Ms. Giraud said that she believed carports are not a structure that will last a long time and that the owner might eventually want to put up something more permanent and perhaps more elaborate. Ms. Mickelsen said that the same could be said about vinyl fences.

Mr. Christensen said that the roof argument was a good one and the carport would read more like a real building and fit into the neighborhood if a pitch was added, but it would violate the guidelines where they state, "unobtrusive as possible". Mr. Simonsen pointed out that flat roofs were not uncommon and compatible in the University area.

Mr. Fitzsimmons said that first sentence of the guidelines reads, "it should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house, "which this project would accomplish. He read where the guidelines refer to acceptable materials. He said that the only thing vertical on the structure beside the poles would be a little fascia. Mr. Fitzsimn1ons questioned, 'When does an accessory building become an accessory building. If this was a potting shed or something like that, would it be coming before the Commission." Ms. Giraud responded by saying that a building like a potting shed or a storage shed would not come before the Commission if it was in the back yard and had the appropriate setbacks.

Ms. Giraud pointed out that one thing the Commission might also want to consider is that in the design standards for the University Historic District it states, "Garages are set back on the lot and are detached from the house. They are almost all accessed by single-car driveways from the streets; however, alleys bisect the north/south streets." Ms. Giraud said that when the guidelines were written as a "catch all" for the characteristics of the district so if someone wanted to put up a big house or big garage right in the front, there was something in the guidelines where that would not be approved.

Ms. Mickelsen mentioned that the alleyways are main thoroughfares for neighborhoods. Ms. Giraud said that alleys are great spaces and contribute to a neighborhood, but they have a secondary function.

Motion:

Ms. Rowland moved for Case No. 016-04, that the Historic Landmark Commission approves the proposed carport structure at 415 So. Douglas Street and modifies the findings that this approval is based on the fact that the proposed carport would not be visible from the street nor in the immediate proximity to any contributing structure, and it would be compatible with other similar structures in the alleyway. This approval would not set precedence for any future cases. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

It is noted for the record that considered discussion took place before the vote was taken regarding the visibility issue, zoning requirements, and the compatibility with other structures in the alley.

Ms. Rowland said that it was important to note that there may be circumstances where the Commission would not think that a carport, such as the one proposed, would be compatible with the other structures in an alley. She added that another alley might have beautiful little custom garages and a carport would not be appropriate.

Case No. 017-04. at 472 No. Main Street. by Don Stromquist and Regina Rosenthal, represented by Lynn Morgan. architect. requesting approval to construct a garage in the rear yard. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Ms. 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:

This is a request for permission to build a 720 square foot detached garage located at the above referenced address. Mr. Lynn Morgan, AIA, has submitted said request on behalf of the property owners, Don Stromquist and Regina Rosenthal. The primary structure on this property is a single-family residence, zoned SR-1 (Special Development Pattern Residential District), the purpose of which is to maintain the unique character of older predominantly low-density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes, and bulk characteristics.

The primary purpose for this review is for design and aesthetic reasons in order to insure that the proposed development reinforces the character of established historic districts. In terms of zoning, the applicant shall be required to meet all zoning regulations for an accessory structure in an SR-1 zone at the time of the application for a building permit. Planning Staff notes that it appears that the garage will meet zoning requirements given the proposed site plan.

Records indicate that the home on this property was built in 1898 as a duplex for Anna Helena Swensen Stranberg, as an income property. In her obituary this home was listed as her residence until 1932.

The primary structure is a large two-story brick duplex, and is a blend of both vernacular and Victorian house pattern book designs.

There is no previous record of a project review by the Historic Landmark Commission for this property. In 1995, a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued administratively by Planning Staff to replace the windows and the French doors at the rear of the home.

Based on the policies adopted in 2000 by the Historic Landmark Commission for administrative approvals, this request has been referred to the full Commission because the finished garage (accessory building) will be in excess of 600 square feet. The proposed garage will be 720 square feet.

The proposed building will be a two-car, detached, garage with a single stall carport. The 7/12 gabled, fiberglass shingled, roof would rise to 20'-0" at the peak. It will be almost 17 feet from finished grade to the mid point, as allowed in the zoning code. The proposed primary wall material will be stucco with a hard shingle half round panel in the upper third section of the wall. The garage door will be wood panel with tempered glass window panels. The side entrance door will be steel with panel detailing. The windows on the west facade will be vinyl, single-hung, windows with insulated glass. An existing shed structure will be removed to make room for the proposed garage.

Access to the garage is proposed to be off of 500 North Street. The driveway will be widened and the new sidewalk, apron, curb, and gutter will be constructed to conform with Salt Lake City regulations.

In considering the proposed carport, the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based on section 21A. 34.020{H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for New Construction or Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure:

2. Scale and Form.

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

c. 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;

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

e. 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 surrounding structures are a mixture of a single-story and two-story single-family and two-family residential units intermixed with larger multi-family structures. The streetscape has a variety of massing, scale, styles, and materials. To the south is a large multi-family building on Wall Street, and south of the subject property on Main Street {475 Wall Street) is a single-story multi-family building of 5-9 units with a low roof line.

The 500 North streetscape would be the most impacted by the proposed new garage. A majority of the streetscape is the side yard of the primary house. The street is narrow and short in this block. To the north is a single-story stucco duplex located at 505 No. Wall Street. The proposed garage is set back off the street in the southeast rear corner of the property. Abutting the proposed garage on the east is a driveway, which provides access to the carports associated with the two and a half story multi-family building off of Wall Street. This driveway and the apartment building are higher in elevation than the site proposed for the garage.

The roof pitch and presence of the proposed garage would be subsidiary to the primary structure which has a very steep pitch, and of the surrounding primary structures. Surrounding properties to the south has walled off from the east and southern views of the proposed garage.

Staffs finding of fact: The proposed garage is compatible with the surrounding structures in the area and will blend in with the surrounding streetscape.

3. Composition of Principal Facades.

b. 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;

c. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;

d. 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

e. 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 proposed garage has been designed to be sensitive and complementary to the historic character of the buildings in the immediate vicinity. Given the mixture of types of structures, materials, roof pitches, and heights of the surrounding buildings, the proposed garage is compatible and should not overwhelm 500 North's streetscape. Because of the grade change it will not impact the streetscape of Main Street.

The proposed garage will be wide on the north elevation that is visible from 500 North, however it will be set back from the street 31 feet and the garage doors would be well-defined with wood and glass panels. Further, the materials chosen for the garage, stucco and shingles are similar to the many materials of which the surrounding buildings are composed.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage structure, given the proposed facade treatments, is visually compatible with the materials used in surrounding structures, and again blends in well with the surrounding streetscape.

4. Relationship to Street.

e. 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;

f. 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;

g. 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

h. 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 subject property is a corner lot with the residence facing North Main Street to the west, and the proposed garage facing north towards 500 North Street. The 500 North block face from Main Street to Wall Street is a short distance and the proposed garage has few buildings with which to relate. It will be setback from the street but is only replacing a very small utility shed. Staff has determined that the proposed garage will reinforce the streetscape. The brick driveway will help break up the massing on the long driveway and will provide a link with the red brick driveway and the red brick of the main house.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage will be constructed and situated in such a manner that the continuity of the streetscape, the rhythm of structure spacing, and street orientation are all visually compatible.

Staff's discussion and finding: The applicant is required to provide Planning Staff a copy of a recorded deed combining the two parcels into one large lot prior to receiving a building permit for the proposed garage.

The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, adopted in 1999 by the Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council, also addresses accessory buildings in Sections 9.

9.1. Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. When treating a historic accessory building, respect its character-defining features such as primary materials, roof materials, roof form, historic windows, historic doors and architectural details. Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.

Staff's discussion: In the research, Staff discovered that the original use of the existing outbuilding was as a utility building for Mountain Fuel Supply Company. It was accessed by a right-of-way through the subject property approximately east of the existing driveway. The use of this building and the easement that provided access to it was no longer needed by the utility company and was sold off to the subject property owner and has been used for storage. As noted previously, the applicant proposed to demolish this shed to make room for the proposed garage. Staff has made a finding that this building/shed is not a character-defining feature of the property, given its very small size.

Staff's finding of fact: The removal of the existing shed, that has been determined not to be a defining feature of the subject property to facilitate the construction of the proposed garage, will not violate the intent of preserving character-defining accessory structures.

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 discussion and finding of fact: The proposed garage will be unobtrusive and will not compete visually with the house. As previously stated, the design and location of the proposed garage will be visually compatible with the existing structures on the street, and will blend in with the existing streetscape. The roofline of the garage is similar to the residence, and the materials are appropriate. The garage doors are single, 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 discussion and 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's recommendation: "Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application based upon the findings as noted in this staff report, demonstrating that the proposal substantially complies with the applicable standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, subject to the following conditions: Subsequent to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant shall meet all zoning requirements, recordation of a deed combining the two parcels into one lot, and obtain a building permit for the garage addition. If any substantial changes are required as a result of other City department requirements, Planning Staff shall remand the proposal back to the Historic Landmark Commission for review."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.

Mr. Ashdown inquired if one of the property owners was Lynn Morgan, as stated in the staff report. Ms. Giraud pointed out the error in the staff report and said that the owners were Don Stromquist and Regina Rosenthal.

Mr. Parvaz asked about combining the two parcels into one large lot. Ms. Gasparik referred to the site plan that accompanied the staff report. She pointed out where the small utility shed was on the second lot. Ms. Gasparik said that the City likes to see properties like this combined so as to not create any zoning issues with the new garage being built over the property lines. She said that when she researched the property, she found that the utility shed used to be owned by Mountain Fuel Supply Company about 10 plus years ago. Ms. Gasparik added that they no longer needed it so the company sold the lot to this property owner and they have been maintained as two separate parcels although it has been used as one piece. Mr. Parvaz clarified that the lots will have to be combined in order to build the garage. Ms. Gasparik said that was correct. She noted that she had talked with the owners and informed them that it was a fairly easy deed process that they can record at the County Recorder's office then provide the City documentation so a permit could be issued.

Mr. Wheelwright stated that this has been routinely required for at least the last ten years. He said that the City is always looking to combine commonly owned existing multiple parcels when site plans are reviewed in the Building Permit office because one of the tenets of the zoning ordinance is that every lot created meets the zoning ordinance in terms of its size and proximity to a street and that only one main building is allowed on each parcel. Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that because Salt Lake City is an old city, sites are frequently made up of multiple parcels and there is no process required to combine those; it is just a deed function. He added that there are processes required to make parcels smaller and that is a subdivision process that has been implemented for well over 50 years. Mr. Wheelwright said that there are probably hundreds of occurrences a year that are either through subdivision review or through building permit review where the City is forcing the combination of parcels. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that there are quite a few depicted on the site plan in the staff report.

Mr. Christensen inquired about the proposed materials, such as the fish scale shingles and if they would be a wood product or a Hardiboard product. Ms. Gasparik thought they would be a wood product but suggested asking the architect. Mr. Christensen asked about the shingles, the panels on the garage door, and other details. Ms. Gasparik asked him to clarify this information with the architect, who was representing the applicants.

Ms. Mickelsen asked about the existing retaining wall and if the Commission should be concerned about it. Ms. Gasparik said that there are son1e existing wooden retaining walls, but pointed out that the architect would be able to explain those in more detail. Mr. Simonsen said that it looked like there would be some terracing, but there was not much detail on the site plan.

Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions about the findings. Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Lynn Morgan of Lynn F. Morgan Architects, the applicant, was present. Mr. Morgan submitted a letter from the owners of the property which authorized Mr. Morgan to serve as their representative. A copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Morgan introduced Mr. Brian Mecham from his company, who is the primary project person.

Mr. Morgan stated that he was in the process of taking care of the deed. As it turns out, he said that it is a simple process. Mr. Morgan indicated that the property owners will need to go to the Country Recorder's office where they will have the deed rework and combine them together.

Mr. Morgan displayed enlarged copies of the site plan. He pointed out the existing concrete retaining wall which is about three feet high that jogs along in back of the house. Mr. Morgan explained where the terracing would take place, where the original carport was which collapsed in a wind storm, and other details on the site plan.

Mr. Morgan said that the overall plan is to replace the three foot high retaining wall with a new retaining wall which would have a concrete face with a reveal line in it. Mr. Morgan talked about changing the grade to create a yard area where the children could play and maintain the level of the patio to the house. He mentioned that the shape would be changed to make it more functional. He noted that the yard was broken up into several pieces and difficult to use.

Mr. Morgan said that along the back edge there is an existing five-foot retaining wall that goes around the back of the shed separating the property from the surface parking lot of the adjacent apartment building which will be retained although it is fragile and close to failing. He stated that the foundation for a new reinforced retaining wall would be set one foot off the property line and pea gravel would be poured between the existing retaining wall and the new one, then capped making a bumper curb around the edge to protect the new garage from cars bumping into it from the adjacent parking lot. Mr. Morgan said that a six-foot wood fence would be built around the property.

Mr. Morgan explained how he will be able to build the proposed garage with the roof line at least seven feet above grade so children would not be able to climb up on top of the garage, which is a safety factor.

Mr. Morgan stated that the intent is to use a Hardiboard fish scale shingle and trim, which would be painted. He said that the three windows on the west elevation would be Milgard vinyl windows in a dark gray trim.

Mr. Morgan indicated that the only zoning problem is that they are slightly short of having twenty feet of driveway in front of the garage to the property line so at some point there may be a car bumper hang over one foot over the edge. However, he said, that 500 North Street does not have a sidewalk nor is one planned. Mr. Morgan said that after checking with Transportation and the Zoning Administrator, it appears that approval will be given for that zoning infraction.

Mr. Morgan stated that other locations on the property have been reviewed for the garage, but the only place where the garage could be built is where it is proposed. He pointed out the wedge shaped piece of property on the site plan and said that would be incorporated into the garage area. Mr. Morgan indicated that the owners said they did not need to have a two-story garage for storage.

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

• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by asking about the two clerestory windows on the north elevation. Mr. Morgan said that they would be small accent windows trimmed with Hardiboard with a fixed piece of glass. Mr. Simonsen asked if there would be a separate frame. Mr. Morgan said that there would not be a separate frame just an insulated section banded. He added that the garage is not intended to be heated but he said that it has been his experience if the garage is insulated and sheet rocked, the garage tends to stay comfortable. Mr. Morgan said that the garage door would be a wood door with a natural stain and be a style of rail door with windows on the top section. He said that it will look like the traditional garage doors except it will be segmented and rolled up. Mr. Simonsen asked if there would be three segments in the doors. Mr. Morgan believed there would be three. He said that he had a picture of the proposed garage door but did not bring it with him. Mr. Simonsen asked about the roof shingles. Mr. Morgan said that they will be an architectural grade fiberglass shingle with a variegated pattern.

• Ms. Mickelsen said that she was having difficulty interpreting the northeast corner of the garage. Mr. Morgan said that will be an enclosure for the placement of three City garbage cans so that they will be tucked off to the side. Ms. Mickelsen then asked if the grade changes would need to be approved with a variance. Mr. Morgan said that a variance would not be needed. He explained that by lowering the level of the proposed garage floor about two feet, the rest of the grade would be picked up internally in the lot. Mr. Morgan said that the grades are there now but encompassed into a series of terraces, which will be changed to make a more uniform grade.

• Mr. Parvaz asked how much rise there would be from the property line to the garage. Mr. Morgan said that there will be about a six-inch rise, just a slight slope, enough for drainage.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired about the shingles on the roof of the house. Mr. Morgan said that they are asphalt shingles and very similar in color, which is black. He pointed out that the color scheme will be grays and browns. Mr. Morgan mentioned that he was the architect when the owners renovated their home about five or six years ago, but the roof was not changed. He said that they did not want to use any colors that would "jump out". Mr. Morgan talked about the nice sand laid brick that will be cleaned up and reused for the driveway. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked what was in that little building. Mr. Morgan stated that it was a Mountain Fuel pump station or something to do with the gas system. Mountain Fuel abandoned the shed and sold it to the property owners. He added that when the Stromquists purchased the property, the gas company signed over the easement for the right-of-way and deeded it to the new owners. As was discussed, Mr. Morgan said that the property deed would be changed. He added that the owners have garden tools stored in it. Mr. Fitzsimmons expressed concern that there might be abandoned pipelines because the shed was obviously connected to something. Mr. Morgan said that he has looked around and there does not appear to be any problem with that. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the easement was a pipeline easement. Mr. Morgan said that it is an access easement and not a pipeline easement.

Executive Session.

Mr. Simonsen pointed out that there was a staff recommendation for approval of the project with the verification that it would have to go through a plat amendment process and other zoning issues. He entertained a motion.

There was a short discussion regarding the wording of the motion.

Motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 017-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission accepts the staff's findings of fact and recommendation for the proposed garage located at 472 North Main Street, and approves as presented. Further, that the project meets the standards in the zoning ordinance for the Capitol Hill Historical Overlay District. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

It is noted for the record that considered discussion took place before the vote was taken regarding the clarification that the retaining walls were not part of this application. It was also noted that changing the recorded deed was included in staff's recommendation.

Ms. Rowland recommended that a picture from the manufacturer of the proposed garage door be provided. She added that sometimes garage doors turn out to be something totally different than what was planned. Ms. Giraud said that staff could make that request of the applicants.

OTHER BUSINESS

Episcopal Diocese of the St. Mark's Cathedral project.

Mr. Simonsen said that he did not have any information on the project, but Mr. Zunguze thought it would facilitate the process to have a joint committee of the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission to help support or give direction to the project. He said that there would be two different architects working on the project and two different entities or institutions involved. Mr. Simonsen said that a master plan would be under a Planning Commission review and because the Cathedral is a landmark site, the project would be under the review of the Historic Landmark Commission.

Mr. Simonsen said that he would serve on the committee asked if anyone else was interested. After a short discussion Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Fitzsimmons volunteered to serve on the committee as well. Mr. Simonsen said that he would forward the names to staff so they would be notified when the meetings would be held. He added that he did not expect there would be more than two or three meetings in the two-month period of time.

Juel Apartment Building documentation.

Mr. Christensen asked if the Juel Apartment building pre-demolition documentation could be discussed at this meeting. He asked if everyone had received a copy of the documentation.

Ms. Lew indicated that only the Documentation Committee received the information which was Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, and Mr. Parvaz.

Ms. Giraud said that it was not appropriate to discuss the documentation at this meeting because all the members were not given the information. Ms. Lew said that there would be a short meeting of the committee after this Commission meeting.

Just for the record, Mr. Christensen informed the Commission that he found the submittal to be incomplete. He said that the photographic documentation needed to be more complete and labeled and there were no elevation drawings.

Election of the Chair and Vice Chair for 2004-2005.

After a short discussion, Mr. Simonsen said that nominations were in order for the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Historic Landmark Commission.

Ms. Rowland nominated Mr. Simonsen to serve another term as Chair and Ms. Mickelsen to serve another term as Vice Chair of the Historic Landmark Commission for the year 2004-2005. Mr. Christensen seconded the nomination. It was a unanimous decision by the members of the Historic Landmark Commission that the Chair and Vice Chair would retain their positions.

Adjournment of the meeting.

Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ashdown moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 5:30P.M.