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 Peter Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Lee White was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were 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 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the 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. As there were no public comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded to the approval of the minutes and the public hearing portion of the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to approve the minutes of the December 17, 2003 meeting, as amended. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown abstained. Ms. Rowland and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR There was no report from the Planning Director.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 019-01. at 340 South 600 East. by Overland Development Corporation. requesting an extension of approval to demolish the Juel Apartments located in the Central City Historic District.
Due to a conflict of interest, Mr. Simonsen recused himself from this portion of the meeting and left the room. Ms. Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, chaired the review of this case.
Ms. Giraud presented her memorandum, of which a copy was filed with the minutes: Mr. Brian Holman of Overland Development Corporation requested an extension of the approval to demolish the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East, located in the Central City Historic District. The site will be incorporated into a later phase of the multi-family-unit development Overland Development Corporation is building on this block.
The Historic Landmark Commission denied demolition of the Juel Apartments on May 2, 2001, when it determined that the applicant would have to undertake the economic hardship process. On November 6, 2002 the Historic Landmark Commission found that the Economic Hardship Panel erred in its determination that retaining the Juel Apartments would not be economically feasible. Overland Development Corporation appealed the Historic Landmark Commission decision to deny the demolition of the Juel Apartments. The Land Use Appeals Board overturned the Historic Landmark Commission decision on February 3, 2003, and thus this is the effective date of approval.
Section 21A.10.010(D) Extensions of Time of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance states that extensions 'shall not exceed twice the length of original period." This is Overland Development Corporation's first request for an extension of approval of the demolition of the Juel Apartments. In cases regarding the demolition of a contributing building such as the Juel Apartments, the Historic Landmark Commission Staff has not allowed demolition to proceed until plans for new construction are submitted to the Salt Lake City Building Services Division and the plan review fee is paid, or until the Historic Landmark Commission approves a landscaping plan and the necessary bond money is paid to the City. Mr. Holman has indicated to Staff that Overland Development Corporation plans to submit a landscaping plan similar to the plan submitted and approved by the Historic Landmark Commission on June 4, 2003 for the demolition of the Mumford House (334 South 600 East) and the four-plex (326 south 600 East). Staff will place a landscape plan on the Historic Landmark Commission agenda when Overland Development Corporation submits an updated landscaping plan pertaining to the Juel Apartments.
Staff recommended approval of Mr. Holman's request for an extension of the approval of the demolition of the Juel Apartments.
(Amy arrived at 4:11 P.M.)
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for Staff.
Mr. Ashdown expressed his concern that there was nothing in the memorandum that stated that the Juel might be torn down just to temper the remarket ability to resell the land even though the financing has not been secured. Ms. Giraud stated that she indicated to Mr. Holman that Overland Development Corporation has to submit a landscaping plan for review.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the applicant would document the building, which is part of the demolition process. Ms. Giraud said that the building would be documented. Ms. Lew said that Staff had not received the documentation of the building at this point. Mr. Ashdown asked if receiving the documentation would be a problem. Ms. Giraud said that she was not expecting any problems with the documentation process. She added that the documentation would need to be submitted before a building permit would be issued to demolish the building. Ms. Giraud said that she was not aware of where Overland Development Corporation was in the development process.
Ms. Rowland asked if a second extension is requested, would the developer have to start the process again at the end of two years. Ms. Giraud said that she was under that impression that the process would have to start over with a new application. Ms. Mickelsen said that the Commission had not experienced that.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Ken Holman, the applicant, representing Overland Development Corporation was present. He stated that he wanted to address some of the concerns the Commissioners have relative to where Overland Development Corporation is in the process. Mr. Holman said that a landscape plan has been completed but has not been submitted. He indicated that an architect has been hired to provide the renderings, as soon as other matters are resolved.
Mr. Holman pointed out that Overland Development Corporation is required to document architecturally all of the elevations and floor plans of every unit in the project, plus take photographs of different elements of the project. He added that a title search had to be done for each property. Mr. Holman said that the title search has been completed, but a final report has not been prepared. He stated that he did not see any great need to rush out and demolish the building even though Overland Development Corporation is well on the way of meeting those requirements. Mr. Holman said he was comfortable with leaving the building in place for the time being. He added, "whatever you prefer we would be happy to do."
Ms. Giraud inquired if the architectural renderings were for a future project. Mr. Holman said they would be for the current project. He said that students from the University of Utah completed some previous documentation work, but he believed that the documentation was so extensive in this case that an architect should be hired to do the work.
Mr. Holman also said that before a demolition permit could be issued, an asbestos study had to be done and any remediation plans associated with the study would have to be submitted, as well. He indicated that usually takes one to two weeks to be completed and the process has not been started.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by stating that the last time Mr. Holman was at a Commission meeting, he indicated that he was communicating with the tenants who live in the Juel Apartments about the timeline. She asked if Mr. Holman was still in communication with the tenants. Mr. Holman said that he had not talked to the tenants for a year and they did not know what was going on with the building. He pointed out that there was another partner in Overland Development Corporation who deals directly with the building manager and the rentals. Ms. Mickelsen asked how much notice the tenants would receive before they had to vacate the building. Mr. Holman said that Overland Development Corporation is required to give the tenants a minimum of 30 days notice unless they have a signed lease then the Corporation would have to honor the lease period.
Ms. Mickelsen asked the applicant to report on the rest of the project. Mr. Holman stated that when the lenders were approached about financing the Emigration Court project, without exception every lender said that in this depressed market the amount they were willing to lend would be significantly less than what had been projected. He said that Overland Development Corporation was exploring some alternative financing options for the project. Mr. Holman said that he hoped the development would be started by next summer. He added that there has been no change in the design of the project. Mr. Holman said that his other properties in the downtown area are experiencing depressed occupancy and rental rates, which he had not seen in 20 years. He added, "I don't know of a single building in the downtown market that has a particularly high occupancy."
• In response to a question by Ms. Rowland, Mr. Holman said that there is always a waiting list for rental units that are being subsidized at 40% of medium income because the supply is not that plentiful. He noted that there is an ample supply of every other type of housing, including low income housing or tax credit units. Ms. Rowland asked if the Juel was fully occupied. Mr. Holman said that it was not.
• Mr. Ashdown inquired further about the demolition delay for the Juel Apartments. Mr. Holman stated that there was no need to rush the demolition process, unless the request for an extension is denied. He added that the Corporation would have to move quickly to get the building ready for demolition to get in under the deadline. Mr. Holman said that would have to be a partnership decision. He said he would prefer not to do that.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen 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. Thomas Mutter, a resident of the Juel Apartments, stated that he has lived at the Juel Apartments for over seven years and no money has been put into the Juel for over five years except "band aide" repairs. He talked about the poor plumbing, inadequate electrical system and the infestation of the building. He said that upon an inspection by a City Building Inspector, the top floor was ordered to be closed, but there are tenants who still live on the top floor and still use that dilapidated stairway. Mr. Mutter stated that if the Commission allows an extension, the tenants would continue to suffer the effects of a dilapidated building. He said the plan that was presented for the new multi-family-unit development showed that Phase I would be ready to be occupied by the time Phase Ill was started. Mr. Mutter pointed out that many of the tenants were interested in staying in the area and would be interested in moving into Phase I.
Mr. Mutter stated, "Our parking lot is never plowed, nor our parking lot lights replaced. Safety is so bad in the parking area that many people choose to park on the street. It's terrible that the people behind the project are so into it for the dollars that they won't spend a dime on lot lights to assure the safety of its current tenants. Demolition occurred with little watering to cut down on air born particulates and the smell was putrid for days. There are still holes in the ground where the homes used to be and the fence seemingly to wrap around most of the block portrays this block as sick and unsightly." Mr. Mutter believed that there were safeguards for avoiding such destructive strategies as obliterating an entire block of housing. Mr. Ashdown asked if he had talked to the City about the violations and added that the Historic Landmark Commission was not over code enforcement. Mr. Mutter said that he was aware of that but wanted the Commission to know about the condition of the building. Mr. Ashdown recommended that the tenants approach the City again regarding their concerns about the safety of the building. Mr. Mutter said that an inspector was at the building the previous Wednesday and roped off the stairway. But he said it is not roped off any more. Ms. Rowland asked if people still living on the top floor paying rent even though the City closed down the staircase. Mr. Mutter said that was correct.
Mr. Mutter also expressed his concern that the plans for the development had changed and circulated a copy of the project he got off the website. A copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Mutter continued to describe the conditions of the building and the entire block. He concluded by saying, "It is obvious they are manipulating you and holding my neighborhood hostage for their eventual financial gain." Mr. Knight said that the plans that were circulated looked like the original plans for the development by the previous owner of the property. Some other members agreed.
Ms. Mickelsen asked Staff if they had looked at the code enforcement issues. Ms. Giraud said that those were code issues and not part of the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Ms. Giraud said that the Commission was to make a decision regarding the extension. She read from the Historic Landmark Commission Policy Document, Section 7.0: “All plans for new construction and demolition approved by the Historic Landmark Commission expire one year from the date of the Historic Landmark Commission meeting at which approval was granted. Upon written request by the applicant, the Historic Landmark Commission may grant an extension of time for an additional six months. However, the Historic Landmark Commission may elect to have the plans submitted by the applicant as a new case." Ms. Giraud said that according to the zoning ordinance, the length of time was twice the extension of the original time period, which was one year. She mentioned that the Zoning Administrator would make the final determination how many extension periods would be allowed.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session:
Ms. Mickelsen entertained a motion for the extension of the demolition approval.
A discussion took place with Commissioners expressing his or her opinions relative to the request by Overland Development Corporation.
Mr. Ashdown said that although the property owners have been negligent, the Historic Landmark Commission could not base its decision on the conditions of the building. He also expressed concern about the delay of the project. Mr. Ashdown stated that Phase I was to be completed before the Juel Apartment Building was torn down so the tenants would have the option of moving into the new building.
Mr. Fitzsimmons clarified that Mr. Ashdown felt there had been a material change in the conditions upon which the approval was made for the project. Mr. Ashdown concurred. Ms. Giraud said that the Commission did not approve the design of the new construction, only the concept of the development of multi-family-unit complex.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the landscaping plans for the rest of the block had been carried out. Ms. Giraud said they had not, but the applicant has a certain length of time to carry through with the plans. She added that the City usually extends the length of time through the winter months, but the applicant had issued a bond for landscaping.
Mr. Christensen stated that it seemed clear to him that the building would be demolished very quickly if the Commission denied the extension. He added that by granting an extension perhaps the building would remain for another six to nine months.
Mr. Parvaz said that the Historic Landmark Commission has nothing to do with the conditions of the building or with code issues. He added that they would have to be resolved by the appropriate authorities in the City. Ms. Giraud stated that Staff would ask the City's apartment inspectors to check into the code violations.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved, as the result of the discussion at the January 7, 2004 Commission meeting and based on Staff's recommendation, concerning Case No. 019-01, that the Historic Landmark Commission approve Overland Development Corporation's request for an extension of the approval to demolish the Juel Apartments located at 340 South 600 East. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was opposed. Ms. White was not present. Mr. Simonsen was in a state of recusancy. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Holman said that the fence was only temporary and could be taken down. He said that it was temporarily installed to keep people from trespassing through the block. Ms. Giraud said that she would contact Mr. Larry Wiley in the City's Building Services.
Mr. Simonsen returned to his position of Chairperson for the remainder of the meeting.
Case No. 001-04. at 1253 East 100 South. by Susan Mickelsen of Lupine Enterprises. Inc. requesting approval to restore the existing house and construct a rear addition on the home located in the University 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 presented an overview of the project: Susan Mickelsen of Lupine Enterprises, Inc. was requesting approval to renovate the house, and construct a rear addition to the existing structure at 1253 East 100 South. The home is located in the University Historic District in a Single and Two-Family Residentiai"R-2" zoning district.
According to the historic site form completed in 1980, this Second Empire cottage was built c. 1891. The house is a 1-1/2 story cross-wing type building constructed of brick, with a mansard roof over the main block. The side wing has a gabled roof. The house also has a front porch that runs the full width of the structure with a wood shingled wall and tapered square columns.
The home has been vacant for several years and has fallen into disrepair. The front of the house is proposed to be restored to much of the same appearance as that shown in the attached c. 1936 tax photograph. The applicant is also proposing to construct a two-story rear addition, with approximately 1, 616 additional square feet of space (not including an unfinished basement level). New dormers are shown on the east and west sides of the addition's upper story. A dormer would also be added to the west slope of the existing roof. Future work may include a garage. Greater detail on the proposed materials including window design has not yet been submitted. The applicant wanted to obtain direction from the Historic Landmark Commission before proceeding with plans of greater detail.
Ms. Lew said that all proposed work must comply with height, yard and bulk requirements of the R-2 zoning district.
Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G)(1-12) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, H Historic Preservation Overlay District, 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.
Ms. Lew stated that the Historic Landmark Commission has final decision authority with respect to this request and Staff determined that the following standards and design guidelines 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:
8.1 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
Staff's discussion: The Second Empire style characterizes this one-and-a-half-story cross-wing house with its mansard roof, hipped crown and arched windows. These details would remain intact. A double-entry façade with a full-width front porch and double-hung windows articulate the front of the building. Currently and historically, the building had a front facing door and double-hung window in the area that the applicant is proposing to replace with a bowed window.
Staff's findings of fact: The proposed rehabilitation work will allow the historic character of the building to remain prominent and meets the intent of this standard. However, removing elements on a primary elevation that contribute to the overall historic character of the building and replacing them with a new opening that does not convey the same visual appearance is inconsistent with the standard. Not only is an element introduced that cannot be documented historically, but the way one perceives the surroundings while entering and exiting the house will be changed.
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed;
Applicable Design Guidelines:
8.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition shall be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a differentiation between historic and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original building and the addition may a/so establish a more sound structural design to resist earthquake damage, while helping to define it as a later addition.
8.6 Do not construct a new addition or alteration that will hinder one's ability to interpret the historic character of the building or structure. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the building is inappropriate. An alteration that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the building is inappropriate. In addition, an alteration that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation on the historic style is inappropriate. An alteration that covers historically significant features is inappropriate, as well.
Staff's discussion: Placing the new addition to the rear of the historic structure, where it does not affect the building's streetscape appearance will minimize the visual impact on the primary structure and allow its character defining features to remain prominent. Additionally, the new addition will be designed to be clearly distinguishable from the historic structure, but sympathetic with its character. The new work is differentiated from the old by a change in material and with a jog in the walls that separate the historic structure from the addition.
The proposed materials for the new construction are fiber cement clapboard siding with roofing material and architectural detailing that will match the existing materials. These materials are compatible with the style of the historic building and do not seek to imitate an earlier period or inaccurate variation on the historic style.
As mentioned above, the applicant is proposing a new window design to replace the south facing entrance and window that looks out onto the porch. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed alteration is incompatible with the historic character of the building because it has no historic basis and alters the original orientation of the entrance.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed massing, style and architectural details of the two story addition differentiate it from the historic portion of the house. The proposed new construction meets this standard. However, the removal of historic building features and introducing elements that are not part of a building's history are inconsistent with the standard.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects;
Applicable Design Guidelines: Porches-
5.1 Preserve an original porch when feasible. Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones. Unless used historically, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick" style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is not allowed.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details on a porch. Removing an original balustrade, for example, is inappropriate.
5.3 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail when feasible. Use materials similar to the original whenever feasible. On contributing buildings, where no evidence of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Speculative construction of a porch on a contributing building is discouraged. Avoid applying decorative elements that are not known to have been used on your house or others like it. While matching original materials is preferred. When detailed correctly and painted appropriately, fiber glass columns may be acceptable. The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those used historically.
Staff's discussion; As previously noted, the existing structure is in a state of disrepair. The plans show a restoration of most of the existing primary structure as depicted in the tax photo. Some removal of historic fabric on the front of the building is proposed to accommodate a new bowed window. The applicant believes that the new design allows for a better utilization of the interior space. Additionally, a fiber cement material is proposed to replace the wood shingled wall of the front porch. The porch is on the primary elevation and is a significant character-defining feature of the house. The Commission has consistently not allowed alternative building materials in similar applications because they are not historic materials, and do not convey the visual appearance and texture of the wood feature. The most sensitive and authentic approach is to repair the porch. This approach is preferred because it retains the original materials that contribute to the historic character of the building. If a feature is too deteriorated to repair, it should be replaced using the same kind of material. In this case, wood shingles are a readily available material.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed new window replacement on the front facade would significantly change original openings that contribute to the historic character of the building. Furthermore, it adds a new element that has no historic basis. In this regard, the proposed alterations are inconsistent with the standard. Additionally, a change in material of a significant character-defining feature of a building that does not convey the same visual appearance and texture of the original material is also inconsistent with the 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: Roofs on Additions-
7.1 Preserve the original roof form. Avoid altering the angle of a historic roof. Instead maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. Also retain and repair roof detailing.
7.2 Preserve original roof materials where feasible. Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. Where replacement is necessary, use materials that are similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities. Use a color that is similar to that seen historically. Specialty materials such as tile or slate should be replaced with matching material whenever feasible.
7.3 Preserve the original historic eave depth. The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. Cutting back roof rafters and soffits or in other ways altering the traditional roof overhang is therefore inappropriate.
7.4 Minimize the visual impact of skylights and other rooftop devices. The addition of features such as skylight or solar panels should not be installed in a manner such that they will interrupt the plane of the historic roof. They should be lower than the ridgeline, when possible. Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered on the rear and sides of the roof locating a skylight on a front roof plane is inappropriate.
8.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Set back an addition from historically important primary facade s 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 facade s and use a "connector" to link it.
8.3 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
8.5 Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building. For example, if the building historically had a horizontal emphasis, this orientation shall be continued in the addition.
8.7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition shall not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.
8.8 Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition. Painted wood clapboard and brick are typical of many traditional additions. See also the discussion of specific building types and styles.
8.9 Minimize negative technical effects to original features when designing an addition. Avoid construction methods, for example, that would cause vibration that may damage historic foundations. New alterations 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 facade s. A minimum setback of 10 feet is recommended. The addition 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 facade s 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.
Staff's discussion: Although the proposed addition is large in relation to the existing building, placing the new addition back from the front of the historic structure, where it does not directly affect the building's streetscape appearance, will help minimize any potential negative visual impacts on the historic character of the primary facade of the structure. The perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street will be retained on the front of the building.
The massing and new building materials of the new construction will help make the addition distinguishable from the original portion of the building. The mansard roof form is similar in shape to the roof structure on the main block of the existing structure. The fenestration pattern on the addition is compatible in scale and proportion with the doors and windows seen on the historic building. However, greater detail is needed to fully evaluate the new materials.
Staff's finding of fact: The design of the addition makes use of the basic principles recommended by the City's design guidelines to ensure that the essential form and integrity of the primary portion of the historic building as seen from the streetscape will not be adversely affected by the new construction. The proposed addition is located to the rear of the primary structure 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. The proposed project complies with this standard.
12. Additional design standards adopted by the historic landmark commission and city council.
Staff’s discussion: The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City includes a discussion on additions to historic structures. Specific guidelines that are applicable in this proposal are noted in the discussion of each standard. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project is generally consistent with the standards in the design guidelines.
Staff’s finding of fact: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable standard in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Lew offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the proposed addition with the following conditions:
1. This approval is for design only. The request must meet all other applicable City requirements.
2. The historic window and door openings on the front facade are maintained.
3. Appropriate replacement materials are used if an original feature is too deteriorated to repair.
4. Final approval is delegated to staff.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions regarding Staff's findings of fact.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the owners of the concrete drive because it was not depicted on the site plans. Ms. Lew said she believed that the adjacent property owner to the east owns the fencing. She indicated that the driveway is actually a private right-of-way so it is not really part of this parcel. Ms. Lew pointed out that the applicant has a right to use the alley way or driveway. There was some discussion about the property line because the site plan shows that the property line is down the middle of the driveway. Ms. Lew said that it has not been determined who owns the ground underneath the right-of-way. She noted that the driveway is a private right-of-way and both properties have access to it.
Mr. Simonsen asked if only the two residences share the driveway. Ms. Lew suggested asking the applicant to answer that question.
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 introduced Mr. Anthony Mangum and Mr. Kim Mangum, the architects on the project. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that she was troubled about the right-of-way. She said that the adjacent property owners to the east would like to change their driveway and built a double garage next to the double garage she would be proposing to construct and they would share the driveway. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that she is not certain who owns the right-of-way but only her property and the adjoining property has access to it.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking if the neighbors beyond her property in the back have access to the right-of-way. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the property line ends at the back of the right-of-way and the owners of the property in the back do not have access to it. Ms. Vicki Mickelsen referred to a similar situation in her neighborhood.
• When Mr. Fitzsimmons asked about the material proposed to be used on the front porch, Ms. Susan Mickelsen passed around samples of the proposed materials. She pointed out the material and said that it would be more durable than wood and a better product to use. Ms. Susan Mickelsen added that the front porch has rotted.
• Ms. Heid said that it looked like the porch material was brick in the photo. Ms. Susan Mickelsen assured the Commission that shingles existed on the porch. She said that the Weed family owned the property for about 90 years. She indicated that when the parents died, their son stayed there and essentially did nothing to the home for about 10 to 15 years; he only moved out last fall. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that she hauled out truckloads full of junk. She said she found newspapers as old as 1920.
• Mr. Christensen inquired if the applicant planned to remove the paint from the old brick. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that it would probably be repainted. She noted that paint has to be removed off old brick very carefully and when she talked to the people in the State Historic Preservation Office, they discouraged her from removing the paint because it tends to destroy the brick. She added that the bricks were soft and some were completely destroyed by erosion. Ms. Vicki Mickelsen said that it depends how the procedure is done. Mr. Ashdown said that it looked like the brick is suffering already and another coat of paint probably would not do the brick any good. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the worst places were in the back and they would be removed when the addition is constructed. She pointed out that the family had showered for about 40 years on a painted wall in the bathroom where the water leaked through the wall and caused much damage to the brick. Mr. Christensen said that the house he owns and lives in includes a section that was built in the same era, c.1868. He said that the brick had multiple coats of paint. Mr. Christensen indicated that the brick was so damaged, the paint would capture the moisture behind it and freeze and spalling occurred. He said that twelve years ago, he had the paint chemically removed by a professional and there has been no additional spalling. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that she had a list of restoration contractors and she will refer to the list to find the professional who can remove the paint and restore the brick. Mr. Christensen said he realized that the drawings were preliminary and not detailed, but some of the windows are drawn one over one. He said that the configurations of the early windows are two over two divided lights. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that she intends to replace all the windows, matching the originals, where possible. She said that she would also use double-hung wood windows. She said that windows with divided lights could be custom designed. Mr. Kim Mangum pointed out that the house had many different types of windows. He suggested replacing all the windows with windows with the same configuration. Mr. Christensen referred to his own house again because he said that they appeared to have a lot in common. He said it was helpful that each section of his house had different windows because it was a clue to him that each section was from a different era. Mr. Christensen said he appreciates having different windows in the house because they reflect the history of the house. Mr. Christensen pointed out that one column on the front porch was broken and said that there was much damage to the porch. He inquired if the design of the columns would be closely replicated. Mr. Kim Mangum said that he documented the columns. He circulated a more advance rendering of the proposed project. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that she has not restored a house before with this much damage.
• Mr. Ashdown said that he was trying to understand the motivation for Staff's objection to the proposed new large window in the front. He said that it seemed to him that the dining room would be better placed in the location of the proposed living room. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that could be a possibility. She said that there are two front doors right now. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that she planned to close off the one on the front and make the window larger to let in more light and keep the door on the side. She said that Mr. Ashdown's suggestion would be a consideration when the plans are finalized.
• Ms. Vicki Mickelsen asked about the garage and the other accessory building on the property. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the garage had collapsed and has 20 years of foliage growing on it. She said that the other building is a falling pigeon coop, on which a sign was placed that read, "Protected by the Utah Pigeon Society". Ms. Vicki Mickelsen talked about the history of the block and said that one man owned the entire block at one time. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the house steps back about 20 feet further than the other houses on the block. Ms. Vicki Mickelsen said that she used to live on that block and the subject house was the only other house on the block that had a coal furnace. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that will be replaced.
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:
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested citizen, stated that the issue of the Weed house being related to a faculty member at the University of Utah is important to note. Ms. Cromer said that two homes have come before the Historic Landmark Commission in the last few months that belonged to very significant former faculty members at the University of Utah. She added that the district was named the University Historic District because of this concentration of faculty members in the district. Ms. Cromer said she did not believe that the house would be economically feasible to be restored without an addition. Ms. Cromer mentioned the large size of the other houses on the block. She said that she has watched this house deteriorate over the years and is pleased that it is in qualified and capable hands. She urged the Commission to approve the proposed project with the modifications recommended by Staff.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
The Chair entertained a motion.
Mr. Christensen was curious if the same company that makes Hardiboard made the shingle replica.
Ms. Giraud said that Staff has allowed the use of Hardiboard in certain circumstances, usually on rear additions. She said she was concerned the texture of the proposed materials for the porch would look too uniform.
Mr. Ashdown did not believe the applicant would propose using original materials on the porch.
Mr. Simonsen stated that in a few cases the Historic Landmark Commission has allowed a synthetic material for a decking like Trex even on the front where it had not been highly visible. He added that landscaping sprinkling systems can create long-term maintenance on wood siding. Mr. Simonsen expressed his concern that some materials would not look any different in 20 years.
Mr. Christensen said that he believed the size and massing of the proposed addition would be appropriate. He said that he thought the addition should be stepped back so there would be a clear vision of the difference between the new and the old sections.
Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the front porch was a character-defining element of the house. He noted that the approval made at this meeting was for the concept of the project and when the details are worked out, it could return to the full Commission for a final review. Mr. Simonsen said that could be stipulated in the motion. Ms. Giraud said that the applicant wanted to make sure "she was on the right track" before she went to the expense of detailed drawings on the site plan.
The discussion continued regarding the proposed materials and other related matters. Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved in Case No. 001-04 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve in principal the plan that has been presented concerning the renovation and the construction of an addition to the home at 1253 East 100 South, and that the Commission accept the Staff's findings of fact and Staff's recommendation as stated in the staff report with the following conditions: 1) that the historic window and door openings on the ·front elevation be maintained; 2) that the replacement for the original window styles on the front elevation be replicated in detail i.e. if the windows are two over two, the replica would be two over two; 3) that the other windows around the remainder of the house, per the applicant's statement, be double hung functional windows; 4) that appropriate replacement materials be used where originals cannot be repaired including wood shingles for the ·front porch; and 5) that final approval for the project be delegated to the Architectural Subcommittee. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland, unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. White was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Citizens Awards Ceremony.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Citizens Awards Ceremony would be held on Monday, February 9, 2004 at 5:30P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Simonsen inquired if there would be media coverage. Ms. Giraud said that Staff would contact the media.
Ms. Giraud announced the project winners. She said that each winner would receive a nice certificate matted and suitable for framing. Ms. Giraud stated that former members of the Historic Landmark Commission would also be recognized.
Annual Report.
Ms. Giraud said that she has been putting information together to give to the Planning Director for the Annual Report. She said that Annual Report would include such facts as the number of cases reviewed by the Commission; the number of administrative approvals; huge projects such as the completion of the First Presbyterian Church, and the Newman Center being under construction for a large addition; saving the shingle-style house at 169 South 1300 East for renovation, the Madeleine Choir School coming up with a more appropriate site plan; East Liberty Park Survey; the listing of the Bennion-Douglas Neighborhood on the National Register of Historic Places; Mr. Nore Winter's workshops; the Legislation Action issues with the Redevelopment Agency; the new plans for Pioneer Park; the of property owners who were eligible and received tax credits; the Odd Fellows/GSA problematic agreement will be signed for the new federal courthouse; new infill and construction in Central City; and the review of the artwork with the City and County Conservancy and Use Committee for Washington Square.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Zunguze plans to present it to the City Council. She noted that the Annual Report would include information from the entire division, such as the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, the Housing and Advisory and Appeals Board, and other items in which the Planning Division has been involved.
Mr. Simonsen asked that the members of the Commission be notified when the Planning Director presents the Annual Report to the City Council so the members of the Commission would have the opportunity of attending the meeting.
Mr. Parvaz asked if the Annual Report would go on the website. Ms. Giraud said that she had not thought of that and it was a good idea. Ms. Heid suggested developing the report that is available on the website.
Trinity AME Church.
Ms. Giraud said that the new pastor of the Trinity AME Church, located at 239 East 600 South, which is not a landmark site, has been contacting her because she is interested in listing the building. Ms. Giraud said that the pastor is starting the 'fund raising process and had engaged Mr. Don Mahoney, architect, to help her.
Community Development Block Grants (CDGB) applications.
Mr. Simonsen asked if Staff had heard anything about the CDGB applications. Ms. Giraud said that the Sugar House Reconnaissance Survey contract was about to be signed. She said the area that would be surveyed is 500 East to 1300 East, and 1700 South to 2700 South.
Legislative Action.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the Legislative Action was in its final form to be submitted to the
City Council. Ms. Giraud said a copy would be provided to the Commissioners.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parvaz 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 5:30P.M.