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, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate 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. He said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the site that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site.
REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Simonsen invited Mr. Zunguze to give his report. Mr. Zunguze updated the
Commission on the Long Range Planning Issues meeting scheduled for Thursday, August 21, 2003. He said that the members would not be participating as the Historic Landmark Commission, as a whole, but as members of the audience. Mr. Zunguze said that the Planning Commission is committed to an extra meeting once a month solely to discuss long range planning matters.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the agenda and support materials, which were circulated to the Commission. Copies were filed with the minutes of this meeting. He said that an overall review and current status of the City's community master plans would be the first thing the Planning Commission would be covering. He pointed out that some of the master plans are currently in a draft form.
Mr. Zunguze said that the second item on the agenda was a discussion regarding the establishment of overall City Long Range Land Use themes and policies. He said his concern was that the City has a number of community plans, which do not present a comprehensive cognitive picture, and it is time to address this issue and create a context for each of the community plans.
Mr. Zunguze pointed out that the Planning Commission would also discuss the current and future City Master Planning process. He told of a concern that was raised by the City Council that the process was taking too long to produce the master plans. Mr. Zunguze stated that any bottlenecks in the process would be identified and remedies would be suggested to resolve these matters.
Mr. Zunguze said that another element of discussion would be the actual content of the master plans. He said it has been his position that there is an aspect of community life, which is always related to the population and the demographics of particular areas that should be influential in determining land use policies, and that needs to be reflected in the master plans.
Mr. Zunguze indicated that the final item on the table would be a number of long range planning topics such as downtown issues, housing issues and other such matters important to Salt Lake City.
Mr. Zunguze stated that a clear and strong preservation element would be vigorously discussed and incorporated into the master plans. He indicated that preservation has been somewhat of an appendage and not quite incorporated in the master planning process. Mr. Zunguze said that any help the Historic Landmark Commission could provide in defining that process would be appreciated.
Mr. Zunguze stated that these issues would also be shared with the neighborhood community councils. He stated that the members of the Commission were invited to attend these long-range planning meetings and share in any of the discussions.
Mr. Simonsen asked about the expectations Mr. Zunguze had for ways the Historic Landmark Commission could be a meaningful part of the process. Mr. Zunguze said that the most effective process would be two fold. First, he said that he is hoping to get a sense from the Planning Commission as to how the members want to treat many of these issues. We need some kind of understanding and clear direction for the Planning Division in how to deal with long-range issues. He plans to share the results with the Historic Landmark Commission and get direction from the members on how the Commission would fit in to create a nice balance. Second, when the content of the master plans are discussed, he believes the Preservation Staff will play a much more active role to relay the sense of the Commission on how to articulate preservation policies so that they are effectively outlined in the different master plans.
Mr. Zunguze encouraged the Commissioners to interject timely and appropriate issues into any given community master plan. He said that any general comments in developing policies would be most useful.
Mr. Simonsen said there are historical resources virtually in all of the planning areas. He added that some of those resources the Historic Landmark Commission has jurisdiction over and some are in the National Register districts. Mr. Simonsen said that the real issue is conservation. He believed the challenge has been that the Preservation Staff and the Historic Landmark Commission has not had an oversight and an opportunity to help influence decisions which generates the need for some regulations in certain districts. Mr. Zunguze said he thought that was an excellent point. He remarked that the Historic Landmark Commission will provide useful input into the review process, how the master plans are developed, the content of the plans, and the application thereof into the communities.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the long range planning meetings would be structured similar to the regular Planning Commission meetings where comments would be limited to audience participation, or would it be such that the Historic Landmark Commissioners would have
the opportunity to interchange and interact with the Planning Commission during the proceedings. Mr. Zunguze said that he hoped to have special invitations to the members of the various boards for such formal participation. He added that the meetings would be structured more like work sessions to bring forth comments and ideas. Mr. Zunguze remarked that no projects would be discussed just ideas and strategies to make certain that the master plans were on the right track. He indicated that the Planning Staff needs to have a comfort level that what is accomplished on a day-to-day basis reflects the long range view of the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission so that work can be done on a cooperative basis.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Ashdown moved to approve the minutes of the August 6, 2003 meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsimmons abstained. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 018-03 at 273 South 1100 East. by Laura Howson. requesting to legalize windows installed without a building permit on a house in the University Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Knight gave an overview of the project: Ms. Laura Howson, owner of the property, requested to legalize twenty-four vinyl-sash windows installed on the house without approval from the Historic Landmark Commission or a building permit.
Ms. Maud May Babcock, founder of the University of Utah's Departments of Speech and Physical Education and the University's first female faculty member, had this house built for herself in 1902. Ms. Babcock was a much-loved and colorful figure at the University, and one of the most important figures in theater in Utah. Additional biographical information is attached to the staff report. Ms. Babcock lived in this house for fifty-two years, until her death in 1954. Since 1954, the house has been a rental, and was split into several apartments.
Ms. Howson, the current owner, purchased the property in April 2003. As noted in her letter which accompanied the staff report, Ms. Howson hired contractors to replace the roof and install new windows around the enclosed front porch of the house, in the kitchen and utility porch at the rear of the house, and in the roof dormers. Survey photos taken when the historic district was established do not show the windows at the back of the house, but do show that aluminum storm windows had been installed over the original leaded glass casement windows on the enclosed front porch. These were removed by Ms. Howson's contractor, along with wood screens on the inside sash of the window, which is where the vinyl replacement sash was installed. The photos also show that the window in the dormer was a diamond-paned wood window. The replacement windows are Milgard vinyl sash, with thermal glazing. The windows on the enclosed front porch are single-hung, while the others are horizontal sliders. The photographs accompanied the staff report.
The City's Zoning Enforcement Office issued a Stop Work Order on July 18, 2003 after receiving a complaint about the windows being replaced. Ms. Howson contacted the City, and attended the July 23, 2003 Architectural Subcommittee meeting to discuss the windows. The members of the Architectural Subcommittee were of the opinion that the work proposed should be reviewed by the full Commission.
Ms. Howson has retained the leaded glass wood casement windows from the front porch and proposes to re-hang these windows in their existing openings. The windows on the south side of the porch were re-installed before work was stopped. The diamond-paned window in the front dormer was also salvaged, but was given to a neighbor. Ms. Howson proposes to leave the other windows as installed.
The other windows that have been replaced with vinyl sliders are on the back of the building in the kitchen and utility porch. Those were hopper windows with wood sashes.
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings in this case based upon Section 21A.34.020(G)(2, 5 and 6) of the Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or 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.
Staff determined that the following standards in the ordinance and Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City were pertinent to this application:
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; and
5.Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Staff's discussion: Although thy are not original to the house, the leaded glass windows on the ·front of the house are character-defining features that contribute to the significance of the building. Staff could not locate original photos of the building, but the window design indicates that the windows were added during the historic period; possibly during the period of Maud May Babcock's ownership. Likewise, the diamond-paned window in the front dormer was an important element. However, its location makes it less prominent from the public way. The windows located on the back of the building are on a secondary facade. The owner has stated that the windows that were replaced were wood awning windows with screens that were utilitarian in nature and did not possess any decorative or architectural features.
Staff has allowed vinyl replacement windows in certain cases where the size and configuration is the same and not seen from the public way. In this case the configuration of the windows was modified to vinyl sliders.
Staff's finding of fact: enclosed front porch windows are distinctive features that contribute to the character of the property, and will be preserved by reinstalling the original leaded glass casement windows in front of the replacement windows. Other windows that were replaced were located in less prominent locations, and their removal does not result in a significant loss of character of the house.
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 missing 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 object.
Staff's discussion: The Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City discusses replacement windows extensively. The applicable design guidelines include:
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 also 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.
The Historic Landmark Commission has approved the use of vinyl replacement windows in instances where the windows are located on a secondary elevation and no decorative or architectural features are removed. The windows must also be the same size and configuration as the historic windows. In this case, the original wood windows on the enclosed front porch will be reinstalled. The vinyl casing, especially the meeting rail between the upper and lower sash, will still be visible behind the leaded glass, but staff’s opinion is that this will not be intrusive. The remaining windows that Ms. Howson proposes to leave as they were installed are located on secondary elevations. The original size, shape and ratio of window to wall have been maintained, but the windows have been changed to horizontal sliders. This is not the preferred alternative, as noted in the design guidelines, but the Historic Landmark Commission has allowed the use of horizontal sliders on secondary or tertiary locations when necessary for egress purposes or where they replaced original casement, awning or hopper windows, so the exterior appearance is similar to the original window. The wood casings and trim have been retained for each of these windows, as a result the depth and profile of the historic windows is preserved. The replacement windows are white, and stand out against the existing trim. But a change in the house's paint scheme could help the windows blend in with the adjacent wood trim.
Staff's finding of fact: The most visible parts of the enclosed front porch windows will be repaired and reinstalled. Since this is a legalization of previous work, it is no longer possible to repair the other original windows that have been removed. The replacement windows on the rest of the house are on secondary and tertiary elevations where the Historic Landmark Commission has approved the use of substitute materials such as vinyl in the past. The original configuration of these windows has been modified, but the original casing and profile has been maintained.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation: "Although the proposed solution is not the ideal, Staff ·finds that the proposed solution meets the requirements established for replacement windows in other cases by the Historic Landmark Commission. To this end, Staff recommends legalizing the windows as proposed by Ms. Howson, with the condition that the original leaded glass windows be remounted in their openings on the enclosed front porch."
Mr. Knight stated that there is a concern that the meeting rail on the vinyl sash on the interior would be very visible on the windows that have been reinstalled. He said that the overall impression is that the historic wood windows would still be there and the character defining element has been maintained.
Mr. Knight added that he noticed on the field trip that the dormer window on the west elevation stood out more than the other dormers and was quite visible from the public way. However, he said, that is a secondary elevation and the Commission may want to discuss this matter.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
There was a question and answer session where the Commissioners discussed and analyzed the proposal that was the subject of the request for legalization. Mr. Knight said that he was under the impression no other windows would be proposed for replacement at this time.
Mr. Ashdown inquired about the dormer on the front elevation, which was a major concern to him. He mentioned that staff did not directly refer to that dormer in the staff report. Mr. Knight said that when the staff report was written staff did not believe that dormer was visible from the public way because of its location and the setbacks. He added that staff's recommendation was to legalize the window.
Mr. Simonsen said that he had a question that could be a point of discussion later on about to what extent is the character-defining feature because of the addition that was done and the enclosed porch, and added that he thought that the dormer might be considered a secondary element, not as a character-defining feature, even though it was located on the front. Mr. Knight said that apparently the original window in the dormer was salvaged, but Ms. Howson gave it to a neighbor for them to use on their house so it was not available to bring it back to reinstall it.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Laura Howson, the applicant, was present. She thanked the Commission for hearing the case. She said that she did not realize that vinyl was such a "dirty" word, but she was coming to that realization now. Ms. Howson explained the condition of the interior of the house when she purchased the property. She said that the home had been recently used as a crack house and that the previous tenant pulled wood trim off to burn in the fireplace. She referred to the inspection report that showed the numerous violations for the house. Ms. Howson said that she only replaced the windows that were rotted beyond repair. She said that security was an issue because she worked alone in the house in the evening and also the times she traveled out of city.
Ms. Howson told of her experience with the contractor from Home Depot who said that the replacement windows would be available in about a month after she ordered them. She said that when the workers tried to install them, they realized that they were measured incorrectly and would not fit. Ms. Howson said that the contractor had to "eat" the $2,500 for the windows.
Ms. Howson explained that she was not purposely trying to defraud anyone. Ms. Howson pointed out that again she had a security issue. She looked for window and selected Milgard windows, which are now in place. She added that they are vinyl windows with a vinyl sash. Ms. Howson said that a trained eye probably could see the difference but she could not tell the white vinyl windows from a high gloss painted white window.
Ms. Howson pointed out a correction in the staff report. She said that the windows on the south elevation were never removed. Ms. Howson said that somehow the contractor managed to mount the new windows on the interior. She said that she questioned why the front ones were removed. Ms. Howson said that she has retained all the window panels, which were in the front, including the hinges and handles.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking about the condition of the existing windows. Ms. Howson said that the windows on the enclosed porch had a deep sill with screens that were rotted and a knob that pulled out. She said that there was a real "hodge-podge" of windows. Ms. Howson talked about the new windows being different to where the break was in the old windows, and she said that the breaks are visible. She said that the front windows had squares of leaded panes in the upper portion and they were hinged on the outside and swung out. Ms. Howson said trying to find something that match was totally cost prohibitive. Mr. Parvaz inquired if she planned to replace any more windows in the house. Ms. Howson said that the windows on the north elevation were in good shape with the old rippled glass so there was no reason to change them. Mr. Parvaz talked about repairing and repainting all the windows. Ms. Howson said that she could work on this place for years.
Ms. Giraud said she thought there were aluminum storm windows on the outside on some of the windows. Ms. Howson said there were some that had aluminum storm windows on them but she did not keep them.
Mr. Simonsen asked if all the windows were operable. He pointed out windows that had a split rail, others that are single hung, and still others that have a continuous frame he believed are operable. He then pointed to a window that was not operable. Ms. Howson said that she understood but could not remember which ones opened. Mr. Simonsen talked about reinstalling the windows on the front elevation. Ms. Howson said that they would be installed on the outside and latched. He expressed his concern about cleaning them when dust and dirt get inside. Ms. Howson said that they would be able to be opened for cleaning purposes.
Mr. Ashdown clarified that the windows which were in the front dormer were diamond-paned and rotted beyond repair so the applicant gave them to a neighbor. Ms. Howson said that the neighbor just wanted the frames. Mr. Ashdown asked about modern replacement windows that had a diamond-like pattern. Ms. Howson said that when she met with the subcommittee she asked if the Historic Landmark Commission approved snap-in mullions. She said that she has a budget, but she said that she would not object to trying to make the windows look like they have a diamond pattern. Mr. Ashdown wanted assurance from Ms. Howson that the windows she planned to be reinstalled will be sanded and repainted. The applicant said that they would be sanded and repainted because they look very bad. She added that the brass hinges and handles had been painted pink. Ms. Howson mentioned that the windows on the front elevation were protected from the eaves. She said that hopefully the new roof, after removing the five layers of shingles, the active leaks would stop. She added that the house had been really neglected over the past years.
• Mr. Knight asked if the upstairs had living space. Ms. Howson said that there are two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs.
Mr. Simonsen asked if this project had gone through a building permit review because the windows in the upper bedrooms do not appear to be large enough to meet code and the egress requirements. Ms. Giraud said that there were vinyl sliders in the dormer windows. Ms. Howson said that the contractor with Home Depot claimed that his was a "full service" outfit, so when a permit was issued for the roof because that was structural, she naively thought that also covered the windows, which was not structural.
Mr. Parvaz expressed his concern that when the applicant meets with the building officials, she will have to change some of the windows and how would the Historic Landmark Commission handle that. He asked if the Commission would review the changes. Mr. Knight said that if there are building code issues, the officials would work with planning staff to find something that worked in terms of both the building code and the Historic Landmark Commission's requirements. Mr. Simonsen said that the building officials might show leniency in some instances when the replacement windows are identical to the windows they replaced. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that he did not believe the egress issue was under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission because the building officials would resolve those problems.
Mr. Knight said that the building officials were waiting for the Historic Landmark Commission to complete its review before considering the code issues.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked how many dormer windows were changed. Mr. Knight said that three of the four dormer windows were changed. Mr. Knight said that the original window in the fourth dormer on the south side was replaced some time ago with aluminum windows. Ms. Howson said she understood that it is only what you see from the street that becomes an issue, and asked if she was mistaken in that understanding. Mr. Knight said that generally the elements that are right in the front are very visible from the public way and the Historic Landmark Commission will hold that to the highest standards. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission’s guidelines and ordinance has more flexibility with respect to windows that are not visible from the public way or located on the back. He added that it would be the same with any kind of modification.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen thanked the applicant and closed the hearing to the public. The Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Ashdown said that it seemed to him that the zoning ordinance mostly applied to "before the fact", rather than "after the fact". He wondered if the ordinance should be modified to deal with issues more "after the fact". Ms. Rowland expressed concern that the sort of modification to which Mr. Ashdown referred would encourage property owners in historic districts to carry out projects without having building permits.
Mr. Ashdown was troubled about the condition of the windows that were replaced and the difficulty of applying the standards in the ordinance to this case. He said that it would not be appropriate to mimic the original diamond-pattern design of the window in the dormer.
Mr. Fitzsimmons believed that the most visible windows from the public way are the windows on the front elevation and the five on the south elevation. He mentioned that the five on the south elevation were not replaced. He said that the new windows would be visible through the old reinstalled windows. He said that the front dormer did not make a strong impression on him. He thought it might be better not to call attention to it.
Ms. Giraud commented on the unusual window pattern on the house. She said that the windows in the best condition are the most decorative ones. She said that it could have been the other way around. She also said that staff debated whether or not to review the interior windows on the enclosed porch because staff does not review interior storm windows.
Mr. Simonsen said that he could not understand how the building officials approved the dormers in the first place because of the size of the window openings. He said a decision could be made pending the outcome of the permit's process. He said that the front dormer was a secondary element to the character-defining features of the house. Mr. Simonsen said that if the building department were to require the dormer windows to be changed for egress purposes the Commission might want to see a window used that was more sympathetic to the original windows.
Mr. Ashdown stated that the only image, which would be sympathetic to the original design, would be to use fake mullions and he did not believe it would be necessary to use them. Others mentioned that the option had to remain open so casement windows, awning windows, or another appropriate type could be used. Ms. Lew read from the design guidelines, "Typical windows are double hung, single hung, and casement composite windows."
Mr. Simonsen mentioned that he was the only Commissioner at the subcommittee meeting and he was much more concerned about the front windows then than he is now after making a site visit.
Ms. Rowland remarked that she certainly could understand the budget issue. She talked about a previous case where an owner was told to use wood for the eaves of the house, which she was certain was very costly. Ms. Rowland said if the owner had approached the Commission at the beginning rather than after the work had been done she believed the Commission would be asking for the owner to use something that replicated what was there in the first place. She said that standing on the sidewalk the front dormer might not be so visible but it certainly is visible from across the street.
Ms. Simonsen asked the other Commissioners if they thought the front dormer was more prominent that the other dormers. Mr. Ashdown thought the dormers on the other elevations were more prominent.
Ms. Giraud stated that she believed it would not have been easy to retain those front dormer windows since they were so deteriorated She said that it would be difficult for the owner to try to cut back on cost and have to replicate those windows. Ms. Giraud said she thinks an improvement would be to replace the slider with another type of window and as a compromise have mullions in the middle of the window to form a diamond shape.
Mr. Fitzsimmons said that he believed the pattern of the glass was more important than the pattern of the frame. Mr. Ashdown agreed. Mr. Fitzsimmons remarked that unless leaded glass was used in the window pattern, the window would look artificial. He also believed that the pattern around the house should be consistent and compatible with the pattern of the windows on the first floor.
The discussion turned to the wording of a motion. Mr. Knight said that it would speed up the process if Staff was given some guidance about what could be approved.
First motion:
In the matter of Case No. 018-03, Mr. Ashdown moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the legalization of the first floor windows with the condition that the original hinged panes be reinstalled on the exterior. The legalization of the second floor dormers be approved pending a decision pertaining to code requirements regarding the egress issues, and if changes are necessary, final approval would be given by Staff.
Further that this approval would be in compliance with the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
After a short discussion, Mr. Ashdown amended his motion. Amended and final motion:
In the matter of Case No. 018-03, Mr. Ashdown moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the legalization of the following windows: 1) The first floor windows on the front elevation, because the historic windows would be retained and the new windows could almost be considered an interior feature to the structure, with the condition that the original hinged panes be reinstalled on the exterior; 2) The first floor windows on the rear and secondary elevations because they are not readily visible from the streetscape; and 3) The second floor dormers pending a decision pertaining to code requirements regarding the egress issues, and if changes are necessary, final approval would be given by Staff. Further that this approval would be in compliance with Section 21A.34.020(G)(2,5, and 6) of the City Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Knight stated that staff was applying for the annual CDGB (Community Development Block Grant) requesting $100,000 to pay for a feasibility study of the possibility of renovating the Wasatch Springs Plunge building and turning it back into a swimming pool and community center. He said that this project would be included on the potential bond proposal. Mr. Knight added that the City has been looking at this project for several years. He indicated that it would take about $12,000,000 to renovate the building. Mr. Knight said that the City Council has not wanted to recommend this money for the feasibility study because of the uncertainty of the status of the Children's Museum.
Mr. Knight asked permission to write a letter on behalf of the Historic Landmark
Commission supporting the request.
A short discussion followed. Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion. Motion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approves a letter being written by Staff requesting money from the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) for a feasibility study to renovate the Wasatch Springs Plunge building into a community and recreational center. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 5:20P.M.