August 21, 2002

SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LAI\IDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting

Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126

A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, William Littig, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen. Scott Christensen and Alex Protasevich were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.

Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's 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 their cellular telephones off.

An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according 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 mentioned that a new system is being used to record the Historic Landmark Commission meeting and anyone in any office in the building, that has the appropriate sound card, can listen to the meeting as it is taking place.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Ms. Heid moved to approve the minutes from the August 7, 2002 meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Mickelsen abstained. Mr. Christensen and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

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.

NEW BUSINESS

Case No. 023-02, at 667 East 300 South, by Lupine Enterprises. requesting a review of new construction for a single-family residence. The property is located in the Central City Historic District.

Ms. Lew 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. She stated that Ms. Susan Mickelsen is requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence at 667 East 300 South in the Central City Historic District. Ms. Lew pointed out that the base zoning of the property is RMF-45, the purpose of which is to provide for multi-family dwellings of a moderate/high density. She said that detached single-family dwellings are permitted in the RMF-45 zoning district regardless of the size of the subject lot, provided the lot was in legal existence prior to April 12, 1995. Ms. Lew added that development, however, must comply with all yard area requirements of the R-1/5,000 zoning district.

Ms. Lew gave the following background information: This vacant lot was once the site of a one-and-a-half story frame home. The applicant is proposing a one-and-a-half story structure with 1,258 finished square feet. The house design is essentially rectangular in form, with a long steeply sloping gable end roof that faces the street and gives the house a distinctive asymmetrical appearance. The proposed materials are fiber-cement siding with aluminum soffit, fascia, and gutters. Vinyl windows are proposed with a mixture of casement and single hung windows. The roof material proposed is a composite asphalt shingle. The plans also show a concrete driveway with the remainder of the lot landscaped.

The setback requirements in this zoning district are twenty feet in the front yard, four feet on one side, and ten feet on the other, and twenty-five percent of the lot depth, or twenty feet, whichever is less. Also, the surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent of the lot.

Ms. Lew referred to following standards that are outlined in Section 21A.34.020(H) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance:

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 noncontributing 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 surrounding buildings on the north side of 300 South are shown on the panoramic photograph attached to this staff report. Overall, one- to two-story homes, built during the later 1800's to the early 1900's, with similar setbacks and side yards form the streetscape. Most of the buildings are single family, residential structures and present a typical range of styles, types and materials. An apartment building (ca.1915} is also located on the block. Some of the existing buildings have been converted to apartments as well. The property to the east of the subject lot is vacant. The residential buildings on the south side of 300 South are similar in size and character. Papa Murphy's is located on the southwest corner of 700 East and 300 South.

The size and scale of the proposed home is similar to buildings found on 300 South and throughout the Central City District. Shed roofs, particularly those with the gable end facing the street, were not typically seen as the primary roof form. Input regarding appropriate roof forms from the Commission would be useful to Staff and the applicant.

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: In general, the proportion of openings and their distribution across the various facades is compatible within the context of the proposed structure. The lack of any fenestration on the west facade relates to the proximity of the adjacent structure and the layout of the interior spaces rather than to that of historic buildings within the neighborhood. Greater flexibility in the ratio of solid-to void may be considered on secondary elevations that are not highly visible from the street. Further information regarding the type of doors is needed.

The new entrance is defined by a stoop with a side entry. The plans also show vinyl porch details. Such materials for this type of application have typically been determined incompatible in Salt Lake City's historic districts because of their finish.

Alternative materials such as fiber cement products {Hardiplank) and vinyl windows have been approved for new construction by the Historic Landmark Commission in the past, when the siding has a smooth finish to match the appearance of historic wood siding and the size, proportion and profile of the windows are similar to those seen historically. If the windows are subdivided, simulated dividers should not be used because they fail to show the shadow lines of true dividers. Additionally, new buildings without traditional ornamental details, such as the sunburst and Victorian details, are preferred so that the new construction will not be construed as being an older structure.

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.

Staffs discussion: The front and side yard areas are generally compatible with those along the north side of the subject block, and the buildings primary entrance is located toward the street. Further information regarding the size, type and design of the proposed landscaping is needed. The location of the driveway is in keeping with the character of the district.

3. 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).

Staffs finding of fact: This application has no subdivision issues.

Ms. Lew said that the Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City is also applicable in this case. A copy of the section on new construction was attached to the staff report.

Ms. Lew stated that since this meeting is the first presentation before the Historic Landmark Commission of this project, Staff recommended the Commissioners review the proposed design and make any suggestions they feel are appropriate. If the Commissioners find that additional modifications are necessary, staff recommends that the review be conducted at the subcommittee level.

At the conclusion of the Staff report, Ms. Lew displayed larger drawings of the project.

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.

Mr. Littig asked for clarification that the Staff's recommendation came about from the Architectural Subcommittee meeting.

Mr. Simonsen questioned the lack of detailing for the windows and asked if there was additional information as to the Muntins being on the exterior of the window. He also inquired if Ms. Lew was talking about the canopy covering the porch when she discussed the shed-type roof. Ms. Lew said that it was the overall roof form. Mr. Simonsen pointed out the way the asymmetrical gable was broken up with another smaller gable.

Mr. Parvaz questioned the lack of details of the window wells for the basement on the north and south elevations. Mr. Simonsen noted that the window wells were dashed-in on the basement floor plan, Plan A-100, "Provide concrete area wells as required by finish grade. Contractor to verify."

Mr. Ashdown pointed out that there would be no windows on the west elevation. Ms. Lew said that the applicant chose to do that because the structure to the west of the proposed new building would only be about eight feet away and believed that privacy is the issue.

Ms. Giraud mentioned that there were three lots on the property site, but did not know about the other two vacant lots.

Ms. Heid asked staff to clarify the requirements of allowing an aluminum soffit, fascia, and gutter in historic districts. She added that aluminum was not allowed for restorations, but is allowed for new construction. Ms. Lew concurred that aluminum has been allowed for new construction. Ms. Heid questioned the allowance of the aluminum material and suggested making changes to the ordinance as the revisions are discussed.

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

Ms. Susan Mickelsen, the applicant, was present. She passed around a material sample board. Ms. Susan Mickelsen clarified that there would be nine feet between the proposed structure and the house to the west. She stated that she received Staff's comments and talked about the meeting she had with Staff. Ms. Susan Mickelsen addressed the changes that were made as a result of that meeting and circulated revised plans. The following changes were made: 1) details on the windows. It was recommended that the Muntins be placed on the exterior of the windows rather than between the two panes of glass; 2) the ornamental details (fans) were removed so as to not replicate historic elements; 3) the front porch was changed. The applicant had not noticed that the architect had listed the porch railing as vinyl. She did not like vinyl so the railing would be wood with wood balusters. The decorative eyebrow arch that was added would also be wood; 4) the front yard setback would be twenty, rather than the sixteen feet. With the wide parking strip in the front, the house would set about 35 to 40 feet from the road; 5) four 90-degree corbels with an "S" curve in them has been added. Two on each front gable; 6) The doors would be a six-panel solid door both front and back; 7) the color combination would be "mustardy" for the siding with a white trim; 8) the fascia would be wood and the soffit and gutter would be aluminum; and 9) the window wells would be metal rather than cement with a vinyl covering.

Ms. Susan Mickelsen stated that she and her architect noticed that the houses on the street had shed roofs over the porch, and the rest were hipped. She said because the house would only be 25 feet wide and had limited space, she chose to use a shed roof, rather than a hipped roof.

Ms. Susan Mickelsen said she chose to use an asymmetrical design, so it would not replicate the other historic homes in the neighborhood. She mentioned that past Historic Landmark Commissions made that suggestion when she constructed another home in an historic district. She said that she liked it and hoped others would, as well.

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

• Ms. Vicki Mickelsen led the discussion by asking if the other home the applicant built was the little house on 1200 East. Ms. Susan Mickelsen, the applicant, responded positively and said that the address is 130 South 1200 East. She added that she felt like it turned out very well. She noted that the proposed home would be about the same size. Ms. Vicki Mickelsen then inquired about details on the posts on the front porch, the decorative sunburst pediments, and no windows on the west elevation. The applicant responded by saying that no details were planned on the posts. She also said that the sunburst elements she put on the home on 1200 East were pre-made from cement and they would have been the same for the proposed structure. Ms. Susan Mickelsen discussed her choice of not putting windows on the west elevation. She said that the houses were so close together, she thought it would avoid looking into the neighbor’s windows. Ms. Vicki Mickelsen said she thought that was predicted in urban housing.

• Mr. Parvaz clarified the porch railing would be wood. He then inquired how the windows wells would be protected so no one could fall into them. The applicant said that there would be metal security gratings that could be lifted out for basement egress. She pointed out that ladders are also available for egress. There was a short discussion about whether or not protection was required by the City for window wells.

• Mr. Littig inquired if the rails on the portico would be 4"x4" or 6"x6". Ms. Susan Mickelsen indicated that since it would be a small porch, she planned to use 4"x4" rails if that size would work. Mr. Littig mentioned that 6"x6" was the standard size.

Ms. Simonsen asked if the finish on the siding would be smooth or textured because the sample had a wood grain finish. The applicant said that the finish would be smooth and not textured. Mr. Simonsen inquired if that was a requirement or a preference. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the applicant had studied the design guidelines and a smooth finish looks more like wood. Mr. Simonsen agreed and added, "milled" wood. Ms. Giraud quoted from the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, "Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those used historically." Ms. Giraud noted that was why Staff was justified in approving Hardiboard. Ms. Susan Mickelsen mentioned that one kind of Hardiboard had a beaded edge. Mr. Simonsen asked if the fish scale siding in the gables would be the same material. The applicant said that they would be made from the same material.

• Ms. Rowland pointed out that a garage was not shown on the site plan. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the concrete driveway would go to the back of the house and there would be room to construct either a single or double garage in the back yard, if the new owner desires to build one. She added that one is not planned at this time.

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, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

A lengthy discussion took place relating to the details of the proposed structure. The following is a synopsis of the discussion:

Mr. Littig was more bothered about the design of the aluminum soffit with the perforations, rather than the material. He did not want to approve something based on the material instead of the design. He cited some aluminum soffit that looked bad.

Mr. Simonsen believed that the aluminum soffit, with the perforations, was a modern version of the screening that was used to cover the vents in the attics.

Mr. Ashdown did not understand why it was recommended by Staff to remove the ornamental details that appeared on the original drawings. He said that it seemed to him that by removing those kinds of elements, the structure would "stick out" more in the neighborhood. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission's charter was to "make sure historic neighborhoods stay historic".

Ms. Lew said that the intent is not to "mimic" something that is historic so there would be a definite distinction between the "old" and the "new".

Mr. Ashdown said that he understood that idea, but the proposed structure had a "Victorian feel" to it and "if the applicant is trying to shoot for a Victorian style, I would say let them go ahead and add those elements".

Mr. Littig said, “ I think you are right. I look at this as almost being packaged items.” He said that most new windows that he sees in his line of work seemed to be fairly standard, and some people are looking for something more unique than the "stock-off-the-shelf' standard components. He said he was really skeptical about things that look like plastic "Disney Land" reproduction parts.

Ms. Giraud said that on the other hand vernacular design is the history of the architecture in the district. She said that contractors back in 1915 could only get financing to build four or five homes, rather than entire subdivisions, so if they found a style that worked, it was replicated.

Ms. Giraud stated that in the ten years since she has worked as a preservation planner in the Planning Division, there have been many new single-family homes constructed in historic districts, because the bulk of the structures are single-family homes in historic districts. The style of architecture has been anywhere from ranch style to the similar massing of the Victorian style, like the home the applicant constructed on 1200 East. She has been comfortable with this because of the vernacular history of the district. This concept might be different if it was a district full of row houses, and a detached, single family home was suddenly introduced to the neighborhood.

Ms. Giraud said that the City's zoning ordinance requirements, such as the height limitations, the bulk, massing, and setbacks controls a "very glaring" example of new construction that would not fit into the neighborhood. She believes the zoning ordinance works fairly well in these lower density neighborhoods. Some of the really "modern" styles that have been approved have fit into the district because of the height and the fenestration, which have been "in sync" with what has been around them.

Ms. Giraud addressed the International style of house that some people do not value as historic structures. In the 1940's, people did not believe that the International style fit into a neighborhood where the Victorian style homes were prevalent. There has been a continuation of architectural styles through the years.

There were some comments about a personal preference to some styles of homes. Mr. Simonsen said that care should be given by the Commissioners not to offer personal advice about what constitutes a good style versus what the ordinance would allow. He said that the review should be analyzed as to whether or not a project meets the goals and requirements that are established in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City and the City's zoning ordinance.

Mr. Ashdown suggested that Ms. Giraud was addressing new style construction. He explained that in this case, the applicant was attempting to replicate an old style and she should be able to use some of the small decorative elements, as well. Mr. Ashdown said that he was not suggesting adding those elements he was questioning why it was recommended by Staff to remove them.

Ms. Giraud said that some of those ornamental details, like the sunbursts, could come down to personal taste. Some of those small details would probably not make a difference to the streetscape ten years from now.

Mr. Simonsen pointed out that it states in the design guidelines the replication of historic styles is discouraged. He added that it would be the determination of the Commission whether or not the sunbursts and other decorative elements would be a replication of an historic style.

Ms. Giraud said that it also states in the design guidelines, "To use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block." She said, "That is such a hard balance."

Mr. Parvaz said that the ordinance and the guidelines are not really clear what is preferred and what is not. He believed in this case that the applicant should be given a "little freedom in design, especially with the decorative elements".

It was mentioned that the house next door has decorative elements. Ms. Vicki Mickelsen suggested that the proposed structure could be a contemporary interpretation, rather than a replication, of the house next door.

Ms. Heid referred to the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City where it states, "If they [building components] are to be used, design ornamental elements, such as brackets and porches to be in scale with similar historic features." She continued, "Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged." She said that the debate could go either way.

Mr. Parvaz said that is why each project should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis because the interpretations of the ordinance and the design guidelines differ so much.

Ms. Rowland stated that she believed in looking at the "big picture", such as the massing and scale of a proposed addition or new structure that is incompatible to the neighborhood, or the garage placement on a site. She believed that the decorative elements are also a matter of preference.

Mr. Parvaz said that detailed information regarding the wall sections and the depth of the reveal for the windows was not included on the site plan.

Ms. Rowland said that she thought that information should be forthcoming because it was an important issue.

Mr. Simonsen called for a motion, since the Commission had offered most of the suggestions and recommendations.

Motion:

Ms. Rowland moved to approve Case No. 023.02 with the following provisions: 1) that a detailed drawing be provided of a window design that addresses a reveal at the perimeter so the sash is set back from the face of the siding which would have a final review by Staff; 2) that Muntins of an acceptable type be placed on the exterior of the windows; and 3) that the proposed decorative elements be at the discretion of the applicant. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Discussion and review of the new Historic Landmark Commission documentation policy for the recordation requirement of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition.

Mr. Simonsen announced that at the last Historic Landmark Commission meeting it was agreed that Ms. Lew would give a briefing on the requirements for documentation for the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition.

Ms. Lew outlined her memo, a copy of which was attached to the minutes. She stated that on June 5, 2002, the Historic Landmark Commission created a subcommittee from members of the Commission that would meet on an "as need" basis to review the documentation necessary to record structures approved for demolition. The subcommittee was also asked to draft a documentation policy that would be presented to the full Commission at the second meeting in August. Staff has prepared the following policy language for the Historic Landmark Commission's consideration with input from the subcommittee.

Discussion: When a property is to be demolished, documentation is the last means of preserving the property and provides access to valuable information that otherwise would be lost. This documentation, which usually consists of measured drawings, photographs and written data, provides an accurate record on a historic property's significance.

Proposed Policy: The Historic Landmark Commission shall, as a condition of approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition, require the property owner to provide the Historic Landmark Commission with documentation of the building, structure or site according to the standards outlined in this policy. Such documentation may include photographs, floor plans, measured drawings, an archeological survey, written history, or any other information specified by the Documentation Subcommittee, which may be relevant to the historical or architectural aspects of the building, structure or site.

The documentation shall meet one of the following documentation levels as determined by the Documentation Subcommittee following a field inspection, if necessary, of the subject property. In determining the level of documentation, the Subcommittee shall evaluate whether the building, structure or site demonstrates a quality of significance as defined in Section 21A.34.020(B) of the Zoning Ordinance.

Landmark Site: Such sites are of exceptional importance to the City, State, region or Nation and impart high artistic, historic or cultural values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site.

Contributing Structure: A contributing structure is typically of moderate importance to the City, State, region or Nation because it imparts artistic, historic or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character-defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic materials may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact.

Noncontributing Structure: The major character-defining features of a noncontributing structure have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic form, materials and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures also include those that are less than fifty years old.

Based upon the level of significance of the building, structure or site, different levels of documentation may be required. In keeping within the framework of the Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation, the documentation package may consist of the following:

Level 1 (typical landmark site):

1. Drawings: a full set of measured drawings that includes the following should be sufficient to provide a permanent record of the structure:

a. 1/16" = 1'0" site plan showing the location of the building and its access.

b. 1/8" = 1'-0" scale, dimensioned and labeled floor plans.

c. 1/8" = 1'-0" scale, dimensioned and labeled building elevations and sections

(two perpendicular) with reference to building materials.

2. Photographs: copy negatives and prints should be archivally treated.

a. 25 to 30 black and white photographs (including interior and exterior views) done with 35 mm film as well as 35 mm slides. Specific details may be requested following a site visit, (negatives, contact sheets or small prints).

b. 10 black and white large-format (4" x 5" negatives) photographs showing several interior views, entire views of each elevation, and corner views showing two sides of the building, (negatives and contact prints).

3. Written data: history and description. Specific information that is unique to the building, structure or site and the context of the building in Salt Lake City history may be requested.

Level2 (typical contributing structure):

1. Drawings: a set of measured drawings that includes the following should be sufficient to provide a permanent record of the structure:

a. 1/8" = 1'-0" scale, dimensioned and labeled floor plans.

b. 1/8" = 1'-0" scale, dimensioned and labeled building elevations.

2. Photographs: copy negatives and prints should be archivally treated.

a. 10 black and white photographs (including interior and exterior views) done with 35 mm film. Photographs of the exterior should include such details as trim, porch rails and window treatments, (negatives, contact sheets or 3" x 5" prints).

3. Written data: history and description.

Level 3 {typical noncontributing structure):

1. Photographs: copy negatives and prints should be archivally treated.

a. 10 black and white photographs (including interior and exterior views) done with 35 mm film showing several interior views, entire views of each elevation, and any other pertinent details, (negatives, contact sheets or 3" x 5" prints).

2. Written data: history and description.

Based upon the level of significance of the building, structure or site, the Documentation Subcommittee may request any of the following drawings:

• Site plan;

• Landscaping plan including walkways, retaining walls, fountains and pools, trees and plantings, statues and other decorative elements, such as light posts, railing, etc.;

• Building plans including basement and roof plans;

• Ceiling plans with architectural features such as skylights, plaster work, etc.;

• Building exterior elevations;

• Interior elevations with architectural features;

• Building sections; and/or

• Specific architectural, structural, mechanical, and electrical details.

Available research sources for written documentation include the following:

• Abstract of title;

• Tax card and photo;

• Building permit;

• Sanborn Maps;

• Obituary index;

• City directories/gazetteers;

• Census records;

• Biographical encyclopedias;

• Newspapers;

• City/county histories;

• Personal interviews;

• USHS Library;

• USHS Preservation Files;

• USHS Architects File;

• LOS Family History Library;

• Marriott Library, University of Utah; or

• Local library.

Documentation shall be submitted to the Documentation Subcommittee, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Preservation Staff. Following a determination by the Documentation Subcommittee that the documentation package is complete, a duplicate of the material should be submitted as well. These documents, which record the evolution of historic districts and structures in Salt Lake City, will be stored and available for public use at two separate locations (City and Utah State Historical Society Library).

Recommendation: Review proposed documentation policy and direct Staff as to a preferred course of action.

Ms. Lew stated that at this point the documentation does include the requirement of history. She recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission adopt a documentation policy. Ms. Lew said that currently the zoning ordinance only requires drawings of the building; there is no language that addresses the history. She pointed out that text changes would be required in the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Simonsen stated that he thought the language was sufficiently general at this time, and having this language as an interim policy would be acceptable. He said that even though the ordinance references drawings specifically and information to document the structure, written history should certainly follow that.

Ms. Lew spoke of the comments she received from Mr. Christensen this morning, as he was not able to attend this meeting, such as requiring a minimum scale of 1/8 inch representing one foot. He said that the scale would vary from structure to structure and the type of building. He also said that a definition of archival treatment should be added for the photographs. He suggested that fiber based coating paper should be used for the photographs.

Members of the Commission discussed the following points of interest focusing on the recordation documentation:

Mr. Littig recommended an archival sleeve for storage.

Mr. Ashdown suggested to have slides rather than photographs as an option.

Mr. Parvaz suggested that the photographs should include the interior, as well as the exterior.

Mr. Parvaz also suggested that a three-dimensional model be required in addition to photographs so one would have a relationship with the building. A discussion followed. Mr. Simonsen believed that a model would be time consuming and very expensive to produce. He also said that photographs and drawings would show the landscapes, the topography, and the all the site characteristics better than a model. Ms. Rowland said that a model could be formed years later if the drawings and photographs were sufficient. Mr. Simonsen stated that most institutions that do archival work, use electronic formats, but never do them in lieu of having sufficient documentation because electronic formats have a short life expectancy. Ms. Giraud talked about the storage difficulty.

Mr. Ashdown believed that a three dimensional element, whether it be molded or done electronically, would be very useful if anyone had any desire to reconstruct a building. He mentioned how helpful that, or a sample of the element, would have been when he restored a building.

Mr. Simonsen suggested salvaging samples of specific architectural features.

Mr. Littig said that walking through a significant building and pointing out the details to be photographed would be valuable. There was some discussion that a site should be available as soon as Staff perceives there might be an application for demolition come forth sometime in the future. Mr. Littig believed the documentation would become a case by-case issue.

Ms. Heid suggested that Staff or the Documentation Subcommittee consult with the owners to determine which features must be captured in the documentation. Ms. Giraud thought that was a good suggestion. She said it should be made clear that a subcommittee comprised of members of the Historic Landmark Commission should have availability to the site and those members would suggest to the land owner what characteristics they think are important that needs to be included in the photographs.

Ms. Heid also recommended finding a way to safeguard against falsifying any documentation.

Mr. Littig talked about the importance of documenting how certain components of a building was constructed, supported, and what the catwalks were like.

Mr. Parvaz said that photographs would not show the different layers of the fabric of a building, so they needed to be documented properly. Mr. Littig suggested taking photographs of a building as it is coming down.

Mr. Simonsen said that Mr. Parvaz raised a good point. Composite drawings showing the structural system and how it works would be important.

Ms. Giraud mentioned that some of these suggestions would be difficult to monitor.

Mr. Littig suggested changing some of the wording to "unique" rather than "significant" in some situations. Mr. Simonsen noted such as significant and/or unique elements of the structure.

On behalf of the entire Commission, Mr. Simonsen extended his appreciation to those who were involved in this project, Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, and Mr. Parvaz, as well as Staff. He said that he would entertain any sort of a motion to adopt this an as official policy and continue to work on the zoning changes.

First motion:

Mr. Simonsen suggested that the Commission should make that determination rather than Staff.

A short discussion followed. Ms. Heid amended her motion.

Final amended motion:

Ms. Heid moved to accept a revised draft of the proposed documentation policy for the recordation requirement of approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition as an interim policy until such time that it is apparent that something more would be required. The revised draft would include a three-dimensional model as an optional form of documentation, and that the language be strengthened to allow the Documentation Subcommittee to help determine which architectural features or components of the building needed to be documented by photographs and drawings. If someone approaches staff about the possibility of demolition, they would be provided with the documentation information that would be required to submit with an application if Staff senses a demolition application may be imminent. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Ms. Lew said that she had received the recordation documentation regarding the Promised Valley Playhouse for the Commission's review.

Historic buildings nominated as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site:

Ms. Rowland mentioned that there was an article in the newspaper that said Nordstroms might move into the Z.C.M.I. mall and inquired if the First Security Building on 100 South would be reconstructed as an addition to the mall. Ms. Giraud said that the historic building on the corner would not be affected by any changes in the mall. She also said that the newer annex on 100 South might go.

This information lead to a discussion about the process of nominating an historic building to the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources as a landmark site.

Mr. Ashdown suggested trying to have the building nominated as a landmark site if there was any possibility of it being affected by the change in the mall.

Promised Valley Playhouse:

Mr. Simonsen said that he mentioned at the last meeting that he was going to make a presentation to the editorial board of the Tribune regarding the demolition of the Promised Valley Playhouse. He said that he met with them last week. Mr. Simonsen stated that the board had a lot of questions. He said his presentation was mostly a "pitch" to try to get Zions Securities Corporation and Salt Lake County talking to each other again and seeing if there was still any thread of hope that there could be some sort of transaction. He said that they seemed to be very intrigued with the idea, but said they would have to approach the administration for approval to do anything. Mr. Simonsen added that the board also recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission approach both Zions Securities and Salt Lake County independently. He asked if anyone on the Commission would be interested in pursuing that with him.

Mr. Ashdown said that he would be happy to help with that project, but did not feel optimistic about it.

Mr. Simonsen said that he just dreads the letters that will come the day after the building goes down. He said he believed the only thing that would save it would be a plea from the community. He added that it was necessary to wage a public awareness campaign to show an interest.

Mr. Simonsen said he recently had an interview with the City Council and he had an opportunity to approach the members about taking a look at the zoning in the historic districts. He said that one of the challenges the Commission faces is an incompatibility in several areas with the underlying zoning and preservation of certain types of developments. Mr. Simonsen said that the Council seemed opened to the idea of forming a subcommittee to review the issue. He noted that he had already initiated some discussions with the Planning Director and Staff and believes that it should be pursued as soon as Staff is available. Mr. Simonsen pointed out there may be some assistance needed and would probably ask for members of the Planning Commission and the City Council to work in a combined subcommittee. He asked the Historic Landmark Commission members to think about it if they are interested. Mr. Simonsen concluded that it would eventually come to the full Commission for review and discussion.

Land Use Appeals Board:

Ms. Giraud said that she would E-Mail Staff's response to the Land Use Appeals Board case where the Salt Lake Redevelopment Agency is appealing the Historic Landmark Commission's denial of a request to demolish the structures in the vicinity of Artie Court, and 300 West and 500 North, until an acceptable reuse plan is submitted. The meeting will be held on Monday, August 26, 2002 at 5:30P.M. and invited the members to attend. A copy of the notice was filed with the minutes of this meeting.

Other matters:

Members of the Commission discussed other matters relating to E-Mails from constituents; the old Bill and Nada's Cafe property; the fences being removed on Vernier Court; the planned development and other possibilities for Salt Lake Survey Plat B, Block 38; and the fact that the City has no control over State property.

Mr. Parvaz suggested forwarding a copy of the Documentation Policy for Recordation Requirement of Approved Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition to the State, when it is completed.

There was further discussion whether or not Salt Lake County had jurisdiction over Salt Lake City regarding historic properties.

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. Gordon seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:00 P.M.