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, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Doug Wheelwright, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. David Fitzsimmons and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy 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 4:00P.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 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 sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site.
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.
Ms. Mary Lou Gotchall stated that she was the current Chairperson of the Conservancy and Use Committee of the City and County Building, and a member representing the Utah Heritage Foundation on the Committee. Ms. Gotchall said that she wanted to make the Historic Landmark Commission aware of the Committee and its function. She also said that the Committee drafted specific guidelines within the rules and procedures. Ms. Gotchall stated that the Conservancy and Use Committee were the "watch keepers" of the City and County Building and grounds. She pointed out that the Committee was created after the restoration of the building and grounds (Washington Square) was completed in 1989. Ms. Gotchall said that the rules and procedures were drawn up and the ordinance was adopted by City Council in 1991. She added that it was the Committee's charge to oversee any changes to the grounds or the building that might compromise the integrity of the restoration and the integrity of the historical aspects of Washington Square, which is a National Register site.
Ms. Gotchall said that it came to her attention recently that the Historic Landmark Commission had asked the Committee to develop some guidelines for Washington Square. She pointed out that the Committee became aware of the requests for the Alan Houser statues and the bust of Simon Bolivar to be placed on the grounds, although the Committee was not a part of those decisions.
As the result of those requests, Ms. Gotchall said that a subcommittee was formed and currently in the process of developing the requested guidelines. She said that she hoped the guidelines would be adopted at the next quarterly meeting of the full Committee.
She introduced Ms. Susan Crook, who is a member of the Landscape Architect Subcommittee. She said that Ms. Crook would speak to the Commission about the most recent study, regarding the condition of the grounds.
Ms. Crook said that in order to get some background for making these recommendations for guidelines on how the building and grounds should be treated, the Subcommittee contacted Ms. Jan Striefel of Landmark Design, Inc., who was responsible for planning the renovation of the grounds. Ms. Crook said that she asked Ms. Striefel to write up an assessment of Washington Square and make a recommendation regarding the placement, treatment, and maintenance of the Alan Houser statues and other such elements. Ms. Crook said that the report was completed as a background to the guidelines. Ms. Gotchall said that she hoped that the guidelines would be completed in a month or so. Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Gotchall and Ms. Crook for their informative discussion and said that the Commission would look forward to reviewing the material. He expressed his appreciation for their efforts.
Mr. Simonsen said that comments and discussion by City Councilmember Eric Jergensen regarding the Legislative Action of the review of the Salt Lake City's approach to historic preservation would be postponed at this time.
As there were no other public comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the approval of the minutes and into the public hearing portion of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Heid moved to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2003 meeting. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Fitzsimmons and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 017-03 at 1121 East Second Avenue. by Dan and Anne Smyth. requesting to construct a one and one-half (1-1/2) story addition to the rear of the existing house. The property is located in the Avenues 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.
Ms. Lew gave an overview of the project: Dan and Anne Smyth requested approval to replace the existing rear addition to the house, which is located in the Avenues Historic District in a Special Development Pattern Residentiai"SR-1" zoning district. The zone allows single-family and twin homes as permitted uses. All proposed work must comply with height, yard, and bulk requirements of the zoning district.
According to the historic site form completed in 1980, this one and one-half (1-1/2) story brick Colonial Revival style house was built c. 1906 for William L. Wimmer of Wimmer Investment Company. He lived in the house for only a few years before moving to a large home in a more prestigious section of the Avenues. Mr. Wimmer, however retained ownership of the house as a rental property for a number of years following the move.
The applicants are proposing a one and one-half (1-1/2) story addition with approximately 900 additional square feet of space, which would replace the existing gambrel roofed extension and shed addition to the rear of the home. The addition will provide space for a kitchen, family area, and future upper story space for a bedroom and bath. The proposed materials for the addition are stucco with shingle siding in the gambrel end and west dormer. A horizontal stucco band is shown around the walls at the first floor line. An aluminum lock shingle roofing system is proposed to match the existing roofing material. Wood windows are also shown on the plans for the new addition.
The Architectural Subcommittee reviewed this case at the July 23, 2003 meeting and that discussion centered on several refinements to the drawings. Direction was given to clarify the window treatment, provide greater details on the rear porch, and reconsider the application of different siding materials. This direction is reflected in the current plans. Concerns were also raised regarding the use of an aluminum lock shingle roofing system.
Ms. Lew stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should consider the standards in Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City 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:
The Historic Landmark Commission has final decision authority with respect to this request. Staff has determined that the following standards in the ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City were most 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.
Applicable Design Guidelines:
8.1Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
Staffs discussion: This gambrel-roofed house is a cross-wing example of the Colonial Revival style. The gambrel ends have wood shingle siding and area supported by brackets. There is a small front dormer window and an oval window under the Doric columned porch. These details would remain intact. Although the proposed addition would be on an inconspicuous side, some loss of historic fabric at the rear historic building is anticipated as a result of its construction.
Staffs finding of fact: Placing the new addition to the rear of the historic structure will minimize the visual impact on the primary facades. This location will not radically change the character-defining elements of the historic building.
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed.
Applicable Design Guidelines:
8.4Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
8.6Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
Staffs discussion: The designer has set the addition in from the side walls of the building. The proposed exterior materials, stucco and wood shingles, differentiate the addition from the original portion of the house. The architectural details on the addition are compatible with the existing style of the house and do not seek to imitate an earlier period or inaccurate variation on the historic style.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed materials and details of the addition differentiate it from the historic portion of the house. The proposed new construction would meet this standard.
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;
Staffs discussion: Although a small later addition on the east side (rear) of the structure would be removed, this approach has been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission in the past, and Staff is of the opinion that believes such additions can be successful, if the original form of the primary structure is retained and the design of the new addition is compatible with the historic character of the original structure.
Staffs finding of fact: The character-defining elements of the historic structure will be retained by the proposed project. The proposed project would meet this standard.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Applicable Design Guidelines:
8.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Set back an addition from historically important primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Keep the addition visually subordinate to the historic building. If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than the historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a 11Connector" to link it.
8.3 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
8.5 Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building. For example, if the building historically had a horizontal emphasis, this orientation shall be continued in the addition.
8.7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition shall not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.
8.8 Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition. Painted wood clapboard and brick are typical of many traditional additions. See also the discussion of specific building types and styles.
8.9Minimize negative technical effects to original features when designing an addition. Avoid construction methods, for example, that would cause vibration that may damage historic foundations. New alterations should also be designed in such a way that they can be removed without destroying original materials or features.
8.10 Use windows in the addition that are similar in character to those of the historic building or structure. If the historic windows are wood, double-hung for example, new windows should appear to be similar to them. Depending on the detailing, clad wood or synthetic materials may be considered.
Ground Level Additions:
8.14 Keep a new addition physically and visually subordinate to the historic building. The addition shall be set back significantly from primary facades. A minimum setback of ten (10) feet is recommended. The addition should be consistent with the scale and character of the historic building or structure. Large additions should be consistent with the scale and character of the historic building or structure. Large additions should be separated from the historic building by using a smaller connecting element to link the two.
8.15 Roof forms shall be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate.
8.16 On primary facades of an addition use a solid-to-void ratio that is similar to that of the historic building. The solid-to-void ratio is the relative percentage of wall to windows and doors seen on a facade.
Staffs discussion: Placing the new addition to the rear of the historic structure, where it does not affect the building's streetscape appearance, will minimize potential negative visual impacts on the primary facades of the structure and allow its character defining features to remain prominent. The new addition has been designed to be clearly distinguishable from the historic structure, but is sympathetic with its historic character. The new work is differentiated from the old by a new change in material and a jog in the foundation between the original building and the new addition.
The proposed windows and doors are compatible in scale and proportion with the doors and windows seen on the historic building. No windows are proposed on the east facade because of the minimal separation between structures.
The applicants are requesting approval to install metal shingles on the gambrel roof of the new addition that would match the existing aluminum lock shingle roofing system on the historic building. It has been the practice of the Commission to discourage metal roofs in the city's historic districts. Due to the fact that few original residential examples of metal roofs exist today, this roofing material does not seem to have been very popular in Salt Lake City. Unless the existence of a former metal roof can be demonstrated, either by existing material or through historic documentation such as photographs, the use of metal shingle roofs on contributing structures has not been allowed because of their texture, application, and reflectivity. Although removal of a roof that is too deteriorated to repair may be appropriate, replacing it with a new material that does not convey the same visual appearance is not.
Staff has not been able to find documentation that the existing metal roofing materials was formally approved by the City. However, a photograph of the home included in the Utah's Historic Architecture, 1947-1940 (1988) shows the metal roof has been in place for at least fifteen (15) years. Additionally, a member of the Planning Staff, who lived next to the subject property through the 1970s and into the early 1980s, has indicated that the metal roof was installed just prior to the listing of the district or sometime shortly thereafter. Staff has not been able to discern what the Historic Landmark Commission policy toward metal roofs at that time may have been.
The applicants have expressed a concern about the appearance of the building, if they were required to use another material for the roof of the addition. The metal roof was installed prior to their purchase of the home and they do not have plans to replace it sometime in the near future. The roof is sound and was recently painted.
Staff's finding of fact: The primary facades and character-defining elements of the historic building will not be negatively affected by the construction of a new rear addition. The design of the addition makes use of the basic principles recommended by the City's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City to ensure that the essential form and integrity of the primary portion of the historic building will not be adversely affected by the new construction. The proposed addition is located to the rear of the primary structures and is compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features. The new work is distinguishable from the old and it would be possible, although not likely, to remove the addition.
A metal roofing system is typically not considered an appropriate replacement material for an historic roof material. The material does not possess the physical properties (such as composition, application and texture) or historical authenticity of a wood or asphalt shingles roof. In this case a metal shingle roofing material for the addition would be consistent with the existing roofing material. The proposed roofing material is similar in style, texture, and overall pattern with the existing metal roof. Due to the time elapsed from the installation of the metal roofing material on the historic building and the lack of records regarding permit issuance and enforcement action, the use of a metal roofing system on the addition is acceptable because it is compatible with the existing roofing material. Overall, the proposed project would comply with this standard.
Ms. Lew offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the proposed addition with the following condition: 1) this approval is for design only. The request must meet all other applicable City requirements."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the applicants planned to retain the material on the back of the building. Ms. Lew said that the materials were considered to be the historic fabric and on a secondary side of the building. She suggested that Mr. Parvaz ask the applicants if they intend on retaining those materials.
Ms. Rowland asked if there was a track record established of approvals in which the material of the new roof was the same as the existing but did not meet the current standards in historic districts. Ms. Giraud said that Staff did not have a track record for cases similar to this. She said that there have been cases where historic materials were covered with vinyl siding and the owner was allowed to sheath the addition with vinyl so that a different material would not be introduced, even though the material would not ordinarily be allowed in an historic district. Ms. Giraud stated that the rationale behind the Historic Landmark Commission's decision was that nothing would be gained in terms of reinforcing the historic character of the district by requiring the applicant to use wood siding when the house was almost completely encased in vinyl siding.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if a new metal roof would be allowed if the entire existing metal roof was being replaced. Ms. Giraud said in that case an owner would have to comply with the requirements of the ordinance and design guidelines in place at the time of application.
Mr. Simonsen asked about the specific language of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. He said it was his recollection that metal roofs were not specifically prohibited but instead the language focused on consistency with historic design elements. Ms. Lew said if documented proof could be provided that a metal roof was originally on the building through photographs or other such information, then it could be allowed. She added that metal was not a typical roofing material that was used throughout the historic districts. Ms. Lew read from the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City in Section 7.0 Roofs: "Unless the existence of a former metal roof can be demonstrated, either by existing material or through historic documentation such as photographs, the use of metal shingle roofs on contributing structures is not allowed because of their texture, application and reflectivity."
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Dan Smyth and Ms. Anne Smyth, the applicants, were present. Mr. Smyth said that they were requesting to build an addition on the rear of the house and were willing to answer any questions the members of the Commission may have.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Christensen led the discussion by saying that the applicants went through a design process and were willing to change their plans to use real cedar shingles in the gambrel roof section rather than Hardiboard, and expressed his appreciation. He said that he noticed on the field trip that the house had some very interesting design elements. Mr. Christensen pointed out the two rows of shingles that were sharpened into dentils. He noted that the house next door had the same details. Mr. Christensen asked the applicants if they planned on incorporating that design element into the new addition. Mr. Smyth said that they would incorporate that detail onto all sides of the new addition and added that he thought that was a good idea.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the roof portion in the rear of the building that will be demolished was original to the house. Mr. Smyth said he was not certain but he believed it to be original. Ms. Heid pointed out that the section of the structure showed up on the Sanborn maps. Mr. Parvaz asked if it was possible to keep the windows with the arched brick headers in the back and the straight brick headers on the other elevations on the lower level, and if the applicants planned to give the windows in the new addition the same treatment. Mr. Parvaz also noted that the house next door had the same details. Mr. Smyth said that those elements should be consistent. Mr. Parvaz also inquired if the chimney would be retained. Mr. Smyth indicated that there were two chimneys and neither one would be affected.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked about the round vent that is depicted on the drawing. Ms. Smyth said that it should be diamond-shaped; it was drawn wrong. Mr. Smyth said there is one on the east elevation of the existing house that is diamond-shaped. Ms. Mickelsen said that she would really like to see a roof plan. She inquired if the height of the addition would be as high as the gable in the back or would it be higher. Ms. Smyth said that it would come out from the existing roof line so it would be the same height.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if they were going to salvage any materials from the demolition and reuse them in the addition. Mr. Smyth said no that there would not be much to demolish; just the old addition. Mr. Ashdown also mentioned the details on the edge of the shingles in the gambrel sections. Mr. Smyth said that elements are made out of wood and if they are in good condition, could be reused. He noted again that the new addition would have the same details.
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. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Kirk Huffaker, of the Utah Heritage Foundation, stated that the east elevation of the proposed addition and the floor plan for the upstairs stairway were omitted from the plans. He inquired if the east elevation would replicate the proposed west elevation.
Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to return to the table to answer some additional questions. He said that he recalled the east elevation was discussed in the Architectural Subcommittee. Mr. Simonsen asked if the applicants had made any subsequent changes to the drawings for the east elevation. He also mentioned that the Subcommittee did not believe it was necessary to reproduce the entire elevation. Mr. Smyth said that there would not be any windows or gables on the east elevation because the new addition would only be about 1-1/2 feet from the neighbor's house. Mr. Ashdown said with the 6-inch eave, it would even be less.
Mr. Simonsen asked about the stairs. Ms. Smyth said that they are in the existing home in the front of the house, just to the right of the front door.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience or Commission, Mr. Simonsen thanked the applicants and closed the hearing to the public. The Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the Architectural Subcommittee expressed concern about the section of the original structure that would be demolished. Mr. Simonsen said that the Subcommittee had approved minor demolitions and alterations on previous projects before, and that it would be within the architectural guidelines.
The discussion turned to the issue of making a motion to allow a metal roof in an historic district. Ms. Mickelsen said that she could see the justification for it. When Mr. Ashdown inquired about the age of the existing metal roof on the house, Mr. Knight mentioned that he had lived next door to the house, so he had personal knowledge that the roof was in place before he moved away in 1983. He also said that the roof was installed before the area was designated as an historic district. Mr. Knight concurred that there was no record of a permit issued.
Ms. Giraud said there was no way of telling whether or not the Commission would have approved the material at that time.
Mr. Parvaz asked if the new roof on the new addition would be painted to eliminate any reflection. Simonsen commented that the existing roof was recently painted.
Since there were additional questions for the applicant, it was the general consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting to public comment. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting.
Mr. Simonsen asked the applicants if it was their intention to paint the new metal roof. Ms. Smyth said that was correct; it would be painted.
Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting, as there were no additional questions and continued with the executive session.
Mr. Simonsen said that he believed that the introduction of another material at this point would not be appropriate. Ms. Giraud said that standard was in the context of replacement of a roof. Mr. Simonsen concurred and entertained a motion.
First motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved in Case No. 017-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the design of the new addition based on the requirements in Section 21A.34.020(G)(2,3,4, and 9) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, and Staff's findings of fact. A metal roof is being allowed on the proposed addition because, 1) the metal roof on the existing house was installed prior to the adoption of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City; and 2) it would match the existing roof with its form and color and would not stand out in the historic district.
There was further discussion. Ms. Mickelsen suggested amending the motion and adding, With the understanding that any new roof for the house would conform to the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City." Ms. Heid questioned that the Historic Landmark Commission could not enforce that. Ms. Mickelsen said that in the future, it would be just as easy to make the same kind of argument. Mr. Ashdown said that he did not wish to include that in the motion. Ms. Mickelsen noted that it would be recorded in the minutes.
Amended and 'final motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved in Case No. 017-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the design of the new addition based on the requirements in Section 21A.34.020(G)(2,3,4, and 9) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, and Staff's findings of fact. A metal roof is being allowed on the proposed addition because,1) the metal roof on the existing house was installed prior to the adoption of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City; and 2) it would match the existing roof with its form and color and would not stand out in the historic district. This approval is contingent on the following conditions: 1) the vent in the proposed addition would be changed from what is on the drawing to a shape to match the vent on the existing structure; 2) the roof would be painted to eliminate any reflection; 3) the dentils on the shingles on the original structure would be replicated on the proposed addition; and 4) the arched brick window headers would be replicated on the new addition. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsimmons and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Louis Zunguze. the Salt Lake City Planning Director. will report to the Historic Landmark Commission the results of determination of contributing or non-contributing status of the "John Kaulainamoku/Smokeshop" building at 754 North 300 West. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Simonsen invited Mr. Zunguze to present his report.
Mr. Zunguze said that his report would be in two parts: The first part would review the results of the information put together by Staff and incorporated into a memorandum, dated July 16, 2003, with respect to the contributing or non-contributing status of the building at 754 North 300 West. The other portion of the report will examine the process. A copy of the memorandum was 'filed with the minutes. The following are excerpts of the memorandum:
This memorandum presents the reasoning behind the Planning Staffs determination that the subject building is a non-contributing building in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The determination is being made in conjunction with the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency's proposal to demolish the building and construct a new mixed-use structure on the site.
Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for Determining Contributing Status: Section 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District Preservation Overlay District addresses the determination of contributing and non-contributing status in two places: Definitions, 21A.34.020(B)(2 and 3) and Criteria for Selection of an H Historic
Preservation Overlay District Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Site, 21A.34.020(C)(2).
The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance defines "Contributing Structure" and "Noncontributing Structure" as follows:
Contributing Structure: A contributing structure is a structure or site within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in Subsection (C)(2) of this Section [21A.34.020] and is of moderate importance to the City, State, region, or Nation because it imparts artistic, historic, or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character-defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred they are generally reversible. Historic materials may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact.
Non-contributing Structure: A non-contributing structure is a structure within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District Preservation Overlay District that does not meet the criteria listed in Subsection (C)(2) of this section [21A.34.020]. The major character defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic form, materials, and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures also include those, which are less than fifty years old.
The ordinance cites three criteria for determining the contributing or non-contributing status of a property within a historic district: historical or architectural significance, physical integrity, and the age of the site. The specific language is, as follows:
21A.34.020(C)(2), the Historic Landmark Commission shall evaluate each parcel of property within a proposed H Historic Preservation Overlay District Preservation Overlay District or the parcel of property associated with a Landmark Site. Individual parcels within a proposed district, the district as a whole, and Landmark Sites shall be evaluated according to the following:
a. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following:
i. Events that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of history, or ii. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state of Utah, or nation, or iii. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or iv. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City.
b. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places;
c. The age of the site. Sites must be at least fifty years old, or have achieved significance within the past fifty years if the properties are of exceptional importance.
The zoning ordinance references the definition of physical integrity as described by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. An explanation of physical integrity is addressed extensively in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. As noted in the Bulletin: "Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance." In other words, a sufficient degree of original or historic fabric must remain from the time period associated with the historic significance of the building. For example, if a building is significant for events or people associated with it during a certain time period, but little physical fabric remains to associate the building with that person or event, the integrity is compromised and the building cannot be considered contributing.
In the case of the Smoke Shop, as with the great majority of the buildings within the Capitol Hill Historic District, the overriding aspects of integrity will be design, materials, and workmanship. For almost all properties in the district, these three aspects would most closely identify the historic significance of an individual building and its role in the historic evolution of the district. Few of the buildings have been moved, thus location is a minimal issue. In terms of setting, the gridded streets, large blocks broken by small streets and the wide transportation corridor of 300 West, that have defined the development pattern of the western slope of Capitol Hill for the last century, remain evident.
The Smoke Shop's historic significance is its association with John W. Kaulainamoku (or Kauleinamoku), who built the house between 1879 and 1884. Mr. Kaulainamoku was one of about 75 Hawaiians who immigrated to Utah in the 1870s and 1880s. Many of them settled around Warm Springs. Mr. Kaulainamoku was a laborer for the LDS Church and worked on the original ZCMI store and the Salt Lake Temple. He was also prominent among the Hawaiians in Utah, and was the first ethnic Hawaiian to serve a mission for the LDS Church. He sold the house in 1889, when he moved to Losepa, a colony of Hawaiians established in Skull Valley. His wife, Kapukini, also lived with him
in the house and moved with him to Losepa.
It should also be noted that the Warm Springs Bath House, the first public works project constructed by Mormon settlers in the valley, once stood on the site of the house. Although the Bath House was demolished by the late 1870s, there may still be archaeological remnants of the building on the site.
The Smoke Shop has undergone dramatic alterations that hinder one's perception of its association with the Kaulainamoku family. Sanborn Maps from 1898 and 1911 show that as originally built, the building was a one and one-half (1-112) story central passage adobe structure, with a one-story wing on the back (east side) of the house, also constructed of adobe. The main entry to the house faces 300 West, and was covered by a one-story wood-frame front porch. (Details of the alterations were included in the memorandum.)
The history of the building is compelling, because of its association with the ethnic history of the neighborhood and with the Kaulainamoku family. It is Staff's finding that the building has historical significant and meets the age requirement, as it was constructed well within the historic period. However, due to alterations and additions, the integrity of the building has been compromised to the extent that character-defining features are no longer intact and it no longer retains the identity associated with its historic significance. These alterations are not reversible without wholesale replacement of the building fabric. It is Staff's opinion that the building meets the definition of a non-contributing structure as defined by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Zunguze praised Staff for the research that was necessary to formulate the information into the memorandum. He stated that he concurred with the analysis and the conclusion reached by the Historic Preservation Staff, that the building in question is non-contributing. Mr. Zunguze said that his determination was based on the fact that while the building in question does meet the historic significance criteria, by nature of association with Mr. John Kaulainamoku, it however now fails to meet the other critical elements of the criteria in the ordinance, specifically the issues of major character-defining features. He said that it was important to note that the ordinance does allow for alterations provided that the character defining elements could be redeemed. The building has undergone extensive and dramatic alterations that are irreversible and essentially hinders one's perception of its association with Mr. Kaulainamoku's family. As a result of the loss of its integrity, the building no longer conveys its significance and history. Mr. Zunguze said it was his judgment that once those are lost, it is difficult to calibrate the structure's contributing elements and status.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the second part of the report was regarding the process. He said that according to the ordinance, at the time the Capitol Hill Historic District was established, the Historic Landmark Commission should have reviewed the subject property and made the determination whether or not it was a contributing or a non-contributing structure. Mr. Zunguze indicated that according to Section 21A.34.020(C)(2), the Historic Landmark Commission shall evaluate each parcel of properly and make a determination of its contributing or non-contributing status in the district. Mr. Zunguze said that when an applicant comes before the Commission, the applicant's property should have already been given a contributing or non-contributing status based on the reconnaissance survey that had been completed prior to historic district designation. He pointed out that the ordinance did not envision there was not enough time for the Commission to make that determination for each case, as properties came up for development review, which is an awkward approach. Mr. Zunguze noted that this may be the cause of some of the on going debate with other entities, such as the Redevelopment Agency. He said, "To this end, it is important that the Commission address this deficiency in the process."
Mr. Zunguze stated that, the other element which is awkward in this whole process is that there is no provision in the ordinance for anyone other than the applicant to appeal the Staff's determination. He added that when a letter of objection is received, it has been the practice of the Planning Division to bring the matter to the Commission. However, Mr. Zunguze said that there is not a section in the ordinance that requires that procedure. He stated that the ordinance simply indicates that the project applicant has thirty days to appeal an administrative decision and no one else has that right. Mr. Zunguze again emphasized it is because the ordinance indicates that the determination of a contributing or non-contributing status of a property should take place at the time the historic districts are established. He mentioned that is also the time that community members have an opportunity for input. Mr. Zunguze added that the ordinance then assumes that once that determination is done, it is simply an administrative function to review applications for demolitions. He said that the Staff would use the approved list of contributing or noncontributing structures as a guide in the review, and Staff would refer cases to the Historic Landmark Commission only when they are unsure of the status.
Ms. Mickelsen said she thought the status of a property was determined in the reconnaissance survey. Ms. Rowland followed up by saying that it sounded like the Historic Landmark Commission was supposed to review the designations after the survey was completed and that did not happen. Ms. Mickelsen said that perhaps a house was determined non-contributing by looking at a photograph of the front elevation and no one bothered to explore the house further.
Mr. Zunguze said that he believed the Historic Landmark Commission did not put its "stamp of approval" on the designation status of the various properties after the surveys were completed and this error should be corrected. He strongly suggested that this issue be noted in the Legislative Action Request review by the City Council.
Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Zunguze and called for questions from the Commission.
Mr. Christensen pointed out in the memorandum that there may be archeological remnants on the subject property, which was the site of Utah's first public works building. He asked if there were any intentions to look for any remnants as demolition occurs. Mr. Zunguze said that he had not been given an outline of the demolition process, but if there were things of importance discovered, he would insist that the workers be as sensitive as possible to confine any artifacts that may be found to maintain some sense of history.
Ms. Giraud stated that she spoke to the Utah State Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the issue of an archeological site. She pointed out that the Park Services' archeological sites are held to higher standards than existing buildings or structures with regard to National Register status. Ms. Giraud cited National Register Bulletin 15 which states the following: The ruins of a hacienda once contained murals that have since been destroyed. Historical documentation, however, indicates that the murals were significant for their highly unusual design. The ruins cannot be eligible under Criterion D for the importance of the destroyed murals if the information is contained only in the documentation.
Mr. Zunguze reported that during a discussion with the staff of the Redevelopment Agency, it was his impression that the RDA was not committed to going forward with the project at 300 West and Reed Avenue as previously outlined, due to budgetary or financial reasons. He said that the RDA would re-look at the entire project and its cost effectiveness. Mr. Zunguze added that unless the RDA comes back with a very strong indication that they want to proceed with the project as previously outlined, he would recommend that the Commission and Staff move very cautiously. He said that he wanted to get a sense of where the RDA was on the project before it is scheduled to come back to the Commission. Mr. Zunguze indicated that he did not want the project to go through the entire process then discover that the RDA would have to redo it. As such, Mr. Zunguze recommended that the Commission table the project, and allow the RDA time to work out project details and feasibility.
Ms. Mickelsen mentioned that the Historic Landmark Commission's approval was only for the concept, which meant that the concept could change.
Ms. Rowland asked if there was any room now for properties to be reviewed to determine the contributing or non-contributing designation. She inquired if someone else purchased the subject building, for instance, and removed the non-contributing elements, where one could see the original bare house the Commission may want to change the noncontributing status to contributing. Ms. Rowland added that as time goes by, there are more buildings reaching the 50-year designation and homeowners bringing back buildings to where they would be considered contributing, that were originally deemed non contributing in the first survey. She asked if their status could be changed.
Ms. Giraud said that the first study was about in 1979 or 1980 in the Capitol Hill district. She said that surveys should continually be updated. Ms. Giraud noted that when the West Capitol Hill Historic District was submitted as a National Register of Historic Places nomination in 2001, the consultant prepared a reconnaissance survey of the entire Capitol Hill Historic District. Ms. Giraud stated that in 1979, the cities had a lot of money for this kind of work, but the funds have been cut, so Staff relies on the reconnaissance survey. She added that there is no money to redo the surveys.
Ms. Giraud indicated that in order for the Historic Landmark Commission to review the contributing or non-contributing status of a building, the request would have to come before the Commission in the form of an application. Ms. Rowland discussed this issue further. She asked if it always had to be the property owner to request that the status be changed. Ms. Giraud said that it would not always have to be the property owner, but the request to change the status of contributing or non-contributing would have to be the application. She said at that point the Commission would the review the application as to how the changes affected the historic fabric that would remain on the building, the overall design, and how it would fit into the context of the historic district.
Mr. Simonsen said if a structure was modified to the extent that it could be brought back to a contributing status, it would be a reconstruction. He asked at what point would one be reconstructing history or preserving something that would still fit into the context of the neighborhood. Mr. Simonsen said that he could not recall that issue being addressed by the Commission. Mr. Zunguze said that question would become the key factor in the ability to revisit old surveys and make the determination with respect to whether demolition or reconstruction would take place.
Mr. Zunguze said that he believed this discussion was essential to bring up as the Historic Landmark Commission discusses these issues for each district. He further discussed the need for amending the ordinance to incorporate any appropriate changes so that the review process does not remain reactionary, but more proactive with forethought, in order to effectively preserve the Salt Lake City's valuable historic structures and assets.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if any action by the Commission was necessary regarding this issue at this meeting. Mr. Zunguze said that he was not expecting any action, only support of the issues that needed to be addressed. After a short discussion, it was determined that the process surrounding the determination of a contributing and non-contributing structure would be included on a future agenda, so that the appropriate recommendations could be forwarded to the City Council.
Since there were no other questions or comments from the Commission, Mr. Simonsen thanked Mr. Zunguze for his thoughts and ideas regarding these important issues.
OTHER BUSINESS
Response of the Historic Landmark Commission to the Legislative Action request from City Council.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the Commissioners had reviewed Ms. Mickelsen's memorandum regarding the Historic Landmark Commission's response to the Legislative Action request from City Council. He said he believed all the Commissioners had received a copy. When Mr. Parvaz determined that he had not received a copy, a copy was provided to him.
After a discussion was held, it was the consensus of the Historic Landmark Commission that updated information was to be given to Ms. Mickelsen very soon, who was compiling the information and writing the response to City Council.
Mr. Zunguze inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission planned to send its response to City Council directly, or to send it with the Staff's response. Ms. Mickelsen said that had not been decided and wanted to consult with Mr. Zunguze. Ms. Mickelsen said that she would like to have a copy of the Staff's response before she finalized the Commission's response so any conflicting information could be corrected. She said that Ms. Giraud mentioned a few places that needed to be modified. Mr. Zunguze explained the final steps that had to be taken before the Planning Staff could submit their response to City Council.
Mr. Parvaz expressed his opinion that the Commission should vote on the final version before it is submitted to City Council. Mr. Simonsen said that he felt like the Commission should not delay its response much longer. Ms. Rowland explained that a subcommittee was formed and defined the areas that needed to be restructured. Mr. Simonsen said that Mr. Parvaz was out of the country and was not able to attend those Commission meetings when these issues were discussed.
Mr. Simonsen recommended making a formal motion at this meeting. He also said that the final version should be included in the packet of information distributed to the Historic Landmark Commission before the next meeting.
Motion:
Ms. Heid moved that the response from the Historic Landmark Commission to the Legislative Action Request from City Council be approved along with any updated information. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Fitzsimmons 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. Ms. Rowland moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 5:30 P.M.