July 16, 1997

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 Billie Ann Devine, Craig Paulsen, Dina Williams, Robert Young, Lisa Miller, and Joel Paterson.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Thomas Cerruti, William Damery, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Lynn Morgan, Craig Paulsen, Dina Williams, and Robert Young. Susan Deal, Maren Jeppsen, Rob McFarland, and Heidi Swinton were excused.

Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, and Lisa Miller, Planner. William T. Wright, Planning Director, was also present.

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Williams. Ms. Williams announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented.

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.

Ms. Williams introduced and welcomed Ms. Billie Ann Devine, Mr. Wayne Gordon III, Mr. William Littig, Ms. Elizabeth Mitchell, and Mr. Craig Paulsen as new members of the Commission.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the July 2, 1997 meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Morgan. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Paulsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Williams, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.

Ms. Williams stated that a copy of the agreement between the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council and Mr. Russ Watts of Watts Corporation, which was discussed at the July 2, 1997 Commission meeting, was filed with the minutes of that meeting.

PREVIOUS CASES

Case No. 003-97. at 439 No. Main Street. by Todd Holloway and Doyle Johnson of DT Partnership, requesting final approval of a new two-family structure.

Ms. Lisa Miller presented the Staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Photographs were circulated of the subject property and houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Miller said the revised plan of the two-family structure was different than the first proposal, as far as the design of the facade, in that the garage was now facing east. The original plans for the project were circulated for the benefit of the new members so they could review the changes. Ms. Miller said that she believed that, due to the slope of the lot and the location of the lot on a hill, that the most significant elevation on the proposed building would be the north. She pointed out that the Staff recommendation for this project was, if the Commissioners interpreted this project as meeting the guidelines of the ordinance, then Staff would recommend final approval of this project.

Ms. Williams indicated that there needed to be clarification given in the staff report. She pointed out that the sentence was not complete on page 3 in the last line of the first paragraph, under No. 2 Composition of Principal Facades. Ms. Lisa Miller said that the sentence should read, as follows: "This problem may be corrected with changing the configuration of the windows. The solid would be proportional to the void if there were only two windows rather than four."

The applicants, Mr. Todd Holloway and Mr. Doyle Johnson, were present. Mr. Holloway talked about the suggested window change and said that they would take another look at that configuration. He said that they had taken into account some of the recommendations that were made by members of the Architectural Subcommittee, but not all of them. Mr. Holloway also said that they knew the twin home project would meet with some opposition, but that the property was zoned for that kind of a structure.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Mr. Morgan led the discussion by inquiring about the horizontal lap siding. Mr. Holloway said that it was a Masonite product with a baked-on finish that was supposed to hold up better than paint. He said that the product came with either a smooth or a wood grain finish.

• Mr. Gordon pointed out that the smooth finish only came in white and there were more colors available in the wood grain finish. Mr. Holloway said that he would like the choice of more color selections, but that would be optional, depending what the Commission recommended. Mr. Gordon offered another suggestion that the basement window under the cantilever overhang of the entry be kicked back a little to let more light into the basement area. Mr. Holloway said that he appreciated that suggestion.

• Mr. Littig inquired about how frequent the lap siding pattern repeated itself. Mr. Holloway said that he did not know.

• Mr. Damery asked if he owned the adjacent lots on either side of the subject property. Mr. Holloway said that he did not but had an option to purchase the property adjacent to the north. He further discussed the probability of constructing a single family house, of the same plans as the proposed twin home. Mr. Holloway said there was no way of knowing about the lots on the south. He encouraged the Commission to, "speed up the process, rather than his starting over again and going to Subcommittee after Subcommittee."

• Mr. Cerruti inquired about the height of the proposed structure. Mr. Johnson said that it was 28 to 30 feet. Mr. Wright stated that the height and grade changes had been reviewed to make certain that they complied with the ordinance. He pointed out that the earlier plans did not comply, so a great effort was made to make certain that the details were reviewed on current plans so that they would comply.

• Ms. Williams pointed out that there were several suggestions which were made at the Architectural Subcommittee that were not incorporated into the revised plans.

Mr. Wright inquired if the Commission wanted to go through each suggestion that was made by the members of the Architectural Subcommittee. The Commission members were in concurrence.

The following are recommendations which were made by the Architectural Subcommittee members, which were included in the staff report, and the applicants' response:

The windows above the garages should be changed to present an appropriate rhythm of solids to voids, showing wall space between the windows. Mr. Johnson said that they tried several configurations but could not come up with anything that did not look awkward and still meet the egress code. Mr. Wright showed the applicants a sketch and asked if it was possible for the two windows for each room to be widened to make one window for each room. Both the applicants thought that could be done, as long as egress was met. The discussion continued regarding the window configuration.

The windows on the north and south elevations should be proportional to each other. Mr. Holloway said that they preferred the half-round window pattern that was on the original plans, but stated that some members of the Subcommittee did not like them, so they compromised by adding some windows, and eliminating the elliptical windows. Mr. Johnson pointed out also on the original plans, there were no windows on the garage portion or on the entry facades, which have been added. He said that they doubled some of the single windows. The Palladian-style window was not appropriate. Mr. Holloway indicated that they were changed. Ms. Lisa Miller said that the changes were noted in the staff report that the Palladian window on the facade was changed to a single-hung window.

The lap siding was drawn at 10 inches; it would look more appropriate to the district if it were 6 or 7 inches. Mr. Holloway said that they must have been drawn incorrectly on the original plans because the sample they had looked at was about 8 inches, with a ½ inch overlap, which would make the lap siding7 1/2 inches.

Square box bays would be more appropriate on the west elevation. Ms. Lisa Miller said that it stated in the staff report that the bay windows on the west elevation were changed to box bays.

Show bay projections on the plans. Ms. Lisa Miller pointed out that the bay projections were shown on the revised drawings.

There is a frieze board with crown molding at the cornice line: it is traditional to then also have the same trim at the foundation line. Mr. Holloway said that detail was not shown on the drawings but indicated that he was in agreement with the recommendation. He said that it was traditionally done on homes but was concerned that it would be a replication. Mr. Wright asked if it was more of a detail. Ms. Williams said that it was an articulation of a certain plane or beginning of a siding material.

Smooth textured siding board would be more appropriate than faux-wood grain texture board siding. Ms. Williams reported that this had already been discussed in the meeting.

A different shingle pattern on one side of the twin home would subtly differentiate the two homes. Mr. Johnson said that they originally had shake but changed to fish scale. Ms. Williams asked if there were members of the Architectural Subcommittee that were at the meeting where this proposal was reviewed. Mr. Morgan said he had been in attendance. He pointed out that the Subcommittee members made the suggestion that the shingle pattern should be differentiated for each side of the twin home, with an interruption of details. Mr. Holloway said that he was in agreement with that.

The trim on the comers is traditionally wider/lamer than the trim around the windows. Ms. Lisa Miller said that the staff report indicated that the trim around the windows was changed to 4 inches, with a 6-inch trim on the corners.

Ms. Williams opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests, Ms. Williams closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session.

Executive Session

Ms. Williams summarized what the responsibilities of the Commission were by saying that a determination about an approval, denial, or tabling had to be made, based on the information reviewed at this meeting, the site visit, and the findings of fact included in the staff report. Mr. Wright reminded the Commission that it would be a judgment call

to determine if the proposal substantially complied with each of the standards for the Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction found in the zoning ordinance. At the suggestion of Ms. Williams and with no objection by the Commission, the following is the discussion of each item:

1. Scale and Form: Ms. Williams said that the staffs’ findings were that the proposed building would be larger than the other single family and two family homes along this section of Main Street; the scale would not be compatible.

Ms. Mitchell stated that it seemed very clear that the scale and the size of the proposed structure were major issues. She inquired what had been done to reduce the scale and massing. Ms. Lisa Miller said that initially the applicants had a three story building and the recommendation was made to reduce the building to two stories on each side of the twin home. However, the applicant stated that in order to get a marketable product, the building could not be reduced. Ms. Miller said that the next thing that the staff tried to do was to work with the applicants to reduce the appearance of the massing through the detailing. She said that the scale was actually reduced somewhat by the inclusion of a shed roof on the north and south gable ends, and changing the porch and gable elements. Ms. Miller also said that the two garages were offset from each other by 4 feet. Ms. Mitchell expressed her opinion that the massing really had not been addressed and was concerned that this proposal would set a precedent for other properties in the area, especially the two garages on the front elevation. The discussion continued regarding how the front elevation seemed to be proportionally wrong, the buildings that would be proposed on the other lots adjacent to the subject property, the contour of the property at

street level, the maximum height allowed for the zoning of this property was 30 feet and the proposed building in the rear was in compliance with that regulation, and although there had been many visits to the site, no one had actually paced the property.

Ms. Sarah Miller said that she needed a clarification as to why, under item No. 1, that the staff report did not list a finding for each criteria, such as item a. height and width, through item d. scale of the structure. Ms. Lisa Miller said that the way the zoning ordinance was worded the sub-items were generalized under the main item number.

2. Composition of Principal Facades: Ms. Williams said that the staffs’ findings were that the proposed exterior materials were in keeping with historic district and have been approved on other new construction projects. She pointed out that the windows had already been discussed.

3. Relationship to Street: Ms. Williams said that again the staff's finding stated that the proposed building would be much larger than any other house or duplex along the street and did not relate well to the street.

4. Subdivision of Lots: Ms. Williams stated that the staff's finding was that the subdivision of the subject lot would be compatible with the character of the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Mr. Cerruti wanted confirmation with how many of the findings of fact the proposed building complied with. Ms. Lisa Miller said that it complied with the materials, but it did not comply with the scale. She said that some of the elevations were in proportion and the rhythm of solids and voids was appropriate, but the east facade was not. Mr. Wright said that issue would be somewhat resolved with the change of the window configuration.

Ms. Williams said that the Chair would entertain a motion and that the issues could be addressed in the motion.

Mr. Morgan moved that the application for Case No.003-97 be denied based on the findings in the staff report. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Paulsen, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Damery was opposed. Ms. Williams, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Swinton were not present The motion passed.

Ms. Williams explained the appeal's process to the applicants.

Case No. 008-97. at 337 South 1100 East. by Doug and Esther Hunter. represented by Allen Roberts of Cooper-Roberts Architects. requesting approval of rehabilitation plans for a single family house.

Ms. Lisa Miller presented the Staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the history of the property, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She said that the proposal was to change the entire look of this historic house. Ms. Miller said that the Staff did not make a finding or a recommendation because the need was to review the proposal to determine if it substantially complied with all the standards of the Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, which was included in the staff report.

Ms. Esther Hunter, the applicant, as well as her representative, Mr. Allen Roberts of Cooper-Roberts Architects, were present. Mr. Roberts used a display board to further explain the project. He stated that their presentation consisted of three basic parts: 1) a review of the project history, 2) the history of the house, and 3) their explanation of the new design. He said that they concurred with Ms. Miller's presentation and project history. Mr. Roberts said that the project was approved in 1992, by the Historical Landmark Committee, but the work was not done at that time. He said that at the first presentation, at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting on June 4, 1997, the project was tabled without conclusive opinion from the members about any particular element of the design.

Mr. Roberts stated that the house had been built in 1892. He said that the applicant had discovered a building permit, and he had researched the Sanborn maps for 1898. Mr. Roberts gave a description of the original house by saying that it had an inset porch and a hipped roof, rather than a gable roof. He talked about the house having been altered five times over the decades and as the result, it had an eclectic appearance, in an eclectic neighborhood. Mr. Roberts said, "If there is anything that characterizes this neighborhood and the street, that this house sits on, is a collection of a great variety of styles and types, time periods, materials, and design elements, and this house fits in that tradition. "

Mr. Roberts described some of the alterations that had taken place in the house, such as the windows, another porch across the front which had been installed at one time, the double doors on the west elevation, the additions, and many other elements. He said that the only part of the house that was original was a section of wall which also had been modified by being gouged with, what looked like a claw hammer, perhaps in anticipation of applying a coat of stucco, but instead it was painted.

• Mr. Roberts continued by saying that there was a question of whether or not this house was contributory, which he said had been discussed at length in the deliberations with Staff, and the applicant's and his view was that it depended on how one defined that term, and in their opinion, it was not conclusive. Mr. Roberts said, "One of our positions is that even though many of the changes could have been made more than 50 years ago, the question is how significant are those changes. To use a true analogy, if someone had painted a mustache on the 'Mona Lisa' more than 51 years ago, would you leave it on there just because it was 51 years old."

Mr. Roberts reported that the Hunters had purchased the house in 1983 and lived in it until two years ago, then they moved out of it awaiting the renovation project to be completed. He reported that during those two years, damage had occurred in the house and he indicated that he had photographs of those damages. Mr. Roberts said that a contractor was ready to get started to try to have the work completed this year, so that no further damage would occur.

Mr. Roberts said that he would like to focus on the proposed new design of the building and explained how he and the applicants came to the design conclusions that they did, what kinds of problems they were trying to solve, why they thought the new design of the house was compatible, and how they thought it would match the standards that the City had for work of this sort.

Mr. Roberts presented a description of the proposal for the house, which included: 1) a steeper roof so the applicants could get the head room they needed in the attic; 2) several bedrooms, bathrooms, an art studio, and a stairway would be constructed to the attic; 3) Palladian window in the gable on the front facade; 4) wood balustrade on the front porch; 5) round columns on the front facade; 6) shed dormers which would be set back from the plane on the front of the building; 7) stucco application on the exterior; and 8) the shed-like element over the entry to the garage on the south of the facade would be altered. He said that the original doors and windows, as well as the walls and the arched design elements, on the interior, would remain. Mr. Roberts spoke of the "Mission" style roof over the entrance to the garage by saying that this design element had been prevalent in every classical style. He said that element had been seen in half-timbering designs, but he had not seen it in Prairie or International styles. Mr. Roberts said that when the project was designed, elements of the existing structure as well as other buildings in the neighborhood were incorporated into the design, which would make it more compatible to the neighborhood.

Mr. Roberts next discussed the historic garden in the back of the house and the reasons why the applicant did not want to disrupt that area; it was not an option. He said the garden was comprised of terraces, with retaining walls made out of rock, and contained many different species of plants and trees. Mr. Roberts noted that the historic garden was a character-defining feature of this property. He said that the only option was to increase the living space in the house to obtain the additional rooms. Mr. Roberts talked about the different approaches they had reviewed.

• Mr. Roberts continued by talking about the different kinds of columns the applicant had reviewed before selecting the type columns that appear on the drawings. He pointed out that the most prevalent type of column in the neighborhood was round and not square, which were compatible with the proposed gables and Palladian window.

Mr. Roberts said that it was important to note that this is not like a house on the best block on South Temple. He said that there were no other contributing historic houses on the block that faced west. Mr. Roberts gave a description of the surrounding buildings.

Mr. Roberts continued by discussing the Palladian window and said that a point had been made previously that there was a question as to whether or not it was appropriate to put Palladian windows in a gable like the one proposed on the front facade. He talked about several ways a gable could be detailed. Mr. Roberts said that Palladian windows were chosen because that application appeared to be the best way to illuminate the interior space and to integrate the arched theme that was prevalent in the interior.

Mr. Roberts' discussion turned to the twelve standards that are found in the zoning ordinance on which the Commission would have to consider which items the project would substantially comply with. He said that he thought the project would substantially comply with every item. He continued to discuss the criteria on which the Commission would base a decision.

In summary, Mr. Roberts said the following: "If people in the neighborhood were asked to evaluate this design, in terms of whether or not they thought it was compatible with their own houses and their own streets, I don't think there would be any question that almost everyone would agree that it would be compatible. We think it serves the floor plan needs of the client. We think it is an enhancement of the street and we ask for your approval."

Ms. Hunter said that she appreciated the efforts that have gone into this project, both from the Staff and the Commission. She talked about growing up in the neighborhood and how familiar this house had been to her before she, and her husband, purchased it. Ms. Hunter said that she really loved the house and had carefully selected all the design elements that were being incorporated into the project.

Ms. Hunter also talked about other ways she had reviewed to increase the living space in the house, since building out into the back yard was not an option, such as digging out the basement, but found out with the shoring that would have to be done, it would be too cost prohibited. Ms. Hunter also explained about the lack of funding when the project was first approved but that had been resolved so they were ready to go forward. Ms. Hunter said that she had spent time researching information relating to the house from Helen Wells, who lived in and owned the house for 67 years.

Mr. Roberts asked that, after the executive session portion of the meeting, if he would be allowed to clarify any necessary information. Ms. Williams said that she hoped that if the Commission had questions, the members would field those questions at this time, so the executive session portion would not have to be reopened.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.

• Mr. Young led the discussion by saying that his research on the Tudor-revival style that a Palladian window was not a common element. Mr. Young said that the house in the historic tax photograph in 1936, showed the window squared-off and asked if there would be a problem with eliminating that half round window in the front and make that more of a grouping of casement-type windows, which were more common on a Tudor theme. Mr. Roberts reminded the Commission that the house was not a Tudor style but eclectic in design. However, he said that he had photographs of Tudor houses with round windows. He said that the house would be functional using another kind of window, but would not be as aesthetically appealing. Mr. Roberts discussed further why the window design was selected.

• Mr. Paulsen asked about the seemingly inappropriate large size of the Palladian window. Mr. Roberts said that he made the side lights as small as possible because only the two casement windows would open, and the center window would be fixed. He said that it was the matter of getting the center section to be proportionate to the two side windows that would have to meet code. The discussion continued. Mr. Paulsen also inquired about the front porch balustrade. Mr. Roberts said that they would like the option of not putting it in, but in order to do that, the grade would have to be raised. The options of eliminating the balustrade and raising the grade were discussed. Mr. Roberts said that the porch could only have a 12-inch drop to meet the Uniform Building Code (UBC}.

• Mr. Littig said that he thought the proposed new balusters appeared taller than the traditional height. Mr. Roberts said they complied with the current Uniform Building Code. Ms. Lisa Miller said that the traditional baluster was between 27 and 30 inches.

• Ms. Sarah Miller said that there was also a difference of an opinion whether or not there was a porch on the original structure. Mr. Roberts said that there was evidence that that there had been two porches, but the Sanborn maps did not have them recorded. Mr. Roberts said that much of their information was obtained by the family of the previous owner. Ms. Sarah Miller asked what kind of head room would there be for the second floor, if the roof pitch was not raised. Mr. Roberts said that the space would only allow for half the needed rooms. He said that the roof has to be rebuilt for seismic reasons to meet the Uniform Building Code. The discussion continued regarding this matter.

Executive Session

Ms. Williams summarized the Staff's findings of fact and the information that was provided by the applicant on which the Commission would make its decision.

Mr. Littig asked, if when the drawing called for stucco, would that include anything that appeared to be stucco. Mr. Wright said that there had been much discussion with the Commission and if the material was proposed to be a synthetic stucco system, it would be noted in the staff report.

The following was discussed in detail: 1) the interpretation of the Staff's findings; 2) why the claw-hammered gouges appeared on two exterior walls of the house; 3) the standard wire mesh approach for applying stucco; 4) that painted brick would not have an adhesive base for applying stucco; and 5} the evidence of original porches on the home. There were many questions, such as why stucco was being introduced, the deterioration of the brick, and other related matters.

A lengthy discussion took place regarding the proposed design elements of the project. The evidence had been pointed out, by Mr. Roberts, of the previous alterations to the house, as well as some design features that once were there, but had been removed.

Mr. Morgan said that the house had already grown with the additions though the years. He said that he thought the applicants were doing the best they could with this project to accommodate their family. Mr. Morgan pointed out that the house was isolated on the block and that there was an apartment house on either side of the subject property. He said that he believed that the applicants would retain the character and charm of the original house by keeping many of the design features like the windows and doors.

Mr. Paulsen said that he thought it would look better to leave the brick alone and not have stucco applied over it. He said that he believed the brick was an historic element and should be retained, unless it had badly deteriorated. Mr. Morgan said that the way he interpreted the proposal, was that the existing historic material would remain on the first level, and that stucco already existed on some other additions.

Mr. Young said that there was no evidence with the hammered exterior wall, that the owners, were contemplating applying stucco. Mr. Young said that if the brick would have been a trademark for a specific architect or mason, he would promote leaving the brick exposed. He said that the stucco could be removed, if a future owner wanted to expose the brick again.

Mr. Gordon asked why stucco was being proposed for the entire exterior. Ms. Lisa Miller thought that it was to clean up and unify the building. Ms. Mitchell said that the issue was between pure preservation, by retaining the brick exterior, or stuccoing over it, which had been done on other parts of the structure, and unifying it by making it a more beautiful building. She said that since she was a new member, she really did not know the general philosophy of the Commission on those matters.

Mr. Cerruti said that the duties of the Historic Landmark Commission could be

interpreted differently by some members. He said that his understanding was that there was certain criteria upon which the Commission was required to base a decision. Mr. Cerruti said that the Commission would go through the criteria and determine the specifics of this project, or any other project, and how it would fit the criteria. He said that the Staff appeared to have made a finding with respect to each item from 1 through 12 of the standards for the Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Cerruti asked the Staff to clarify which standards were not substantially complied with. Ms. Lisa Miller said that she determined that standard No.4 and No.9 were not complied with. Mr. Cerruti noted that the Commission did not have to accept the Staffs concurrence and could have an objection to each item.

The discussion turned to the standards for the Certificate of Appropriateness for Alternation of a Landmark Site of Contributing Structure, focusing in on items No. 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9.

Ms. Williams read No. 4, as follows: "Alterations of additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved." She also read the Staffs comments which were included in the staff report. A short discussion followed. Ms. Williams referred the Commission to No. 5, where the distinctive features were stated, as well as in No. 1. She said that under the Staffs finding, under No. 5, it stated that most of the character-defining features would be retained and the eclectic nature of the home had been defined in No. 1. Ms. Williams said that she believed that the entire conclusion under No. 4 was contradictory to other items that substantially complied to the project. Ms. Sarah Miller said that she agreed and said that she did not understand why the Staff did not agree. Ms. Lisa Miller said that she was referring to the roof in

that analysis.

Ms. Williams read a portion of No.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." Ms. Williams said that she thought, from the discussion at this meeting, that the stucco application might not be necessary and might actually result in certain losses to the visual character with which No. 6 required the project to comply. She added that could easily be solved by incorporating a statement into the motion. Ms. Williams asked if there was a consensus among the Commission members with that debate. The discussion continued. However, the Commission members noted that there was a consensus.

Ms. Williams read No.9, as follows: "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." She said that the Staff noted that should the roof addition be removed, be the essential form and integrity of this structure will significantly impaired.

Ms. Williams introduced the subject of "mitigating circumstances" and said, although the minutes of the last Commission meeting did not reflect the conversation, she said that certain mitigating circumstances, was part of a lengthy discussion. She said that she believed that the applicants submitted the current proposal which would enlarge their living space, as opposed to moving to the back of the house or in the back yard. Ms. Williams said that the Staff had acknowledged that the historic garden was a character defining feature of the site and based on that mitigating circumstance, the Commission could actually support the project. Mr. Cerruti asked the Chair to explain to the Commission where the zoning ordinance would permit "mitigating circumstances" and ignore one of the criteria. Ms. Williams indicated that she did not believe that the Commission would ignore the criteria, but she thought that the Commission had an obligation to protect the character-defining features of the structure and if eclecticism was one of those features that she thought the project supported. Ms. Williams pointed out that she thought the historic garden was an important feature. She further said that in answer to Mr. Cerruti's question, she indicated that it was not clarified in the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Morgan noted that the house had radically evolved since 1892, when it was built. He said that he believed that the current proposal was another "evolvement” in order to preserve the better qualities of the house, such as the historic garden, the window and door fenestration, the brick and stucco, and the general character of the first floor.

Mr. Wright said that what the Commission had expressed, in the discussion, would be part of its determination of substantial compliance. He said that when an application requesting significant changes to a structure, then it would be very difficult to say that every element, being proposed on the drawings, would have complete compliance. Mr. Wright pointed out some members of the Commission had expressed that they recognized that the roof element would be changed for a greater purpose of not disrupting or destroying another architectural feature of the house.

Mr. Cerruti said that if this Commission wanted to make a determination that the project substantially complied with standard No. 9, or any of the other standards, it certainly could do so, but that he respectfully disagreed that the Commission could base a decision on mitigating circumstances.

Ms. Williams commented that she thought that the essential form of a single family home would be maintained and that the integrity of the structure would not be impaired if the application was approved. Mr. Damery said that he agreed with that statement. Ms. Williams said that if that was the case, the Commission had developed a new findings of fact, and then said that if there were no other objections, the Chair called for a motion.

Mr. Littig inquired if the motion could be amended by adding to have brick caps on the top of the chimneys instead of stucco. Mr. Damery also mentioned that the findings of fact were not stated in the motion.

Mr. Morgan amended the motion.

Mr. Morgan moved to approve the plans, as submitted, for Case No.008-97, with the stipulation that the historic brick on the first floor would be retained, and not have stucco applied; and that the architect and the applicants, at their option, could work with the details to eliminate the railing across the front porch, and that the City grant an exception on the railing height Further, that brick caps would be added to the chimneys and that the Historic Landmark Commission was in support of the findings of fact, included in the Staff report, and have determined that the project was in substantial compliance to standards No.4, 6, and 9. The second still stood by Mr. Damery. Mr. Damery, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Paulsen, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Cerruti was opposed. Ms. Williams, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Were not present. The motion passed.

Mr. Roberts asked to address the Commission regarding the application of stucco over the historic brick. He said that he, and the applicants, had reviewed the possibility of retaining the brick, but that there were different kinds of brick that were accrued after each addition was constructed, and as was stated during this meeting, that some of the brick appeared to have been claw hammered. Mr. Roberts said that the exterior consisted of brick, painted brick, hammered brick, stucco, concrete, and rock. He said the Staff was correct, that the applicant's desire to apply stucco was to unify the conditions of the building. Mr. Roberts also pointed out that the brick had deteriorated because it was a very soft, low-fired brick almost like adobe. He mentioned that some of the bricks, which had popped out, had been piled in the yard and were destroyed by the rain. He said that the brick would be an on-going deterioration and maintenance problem. Mr. Roberts asked the Historic Landmark Commission to rescind its decision and allow the application of stucco on the exterior. Further, he said that the chimneys were not visible from the street, and he and the applicants did not believe that to be forced to put brick caps on top of the 20-foot tall chimneys was an expense that was not justified.

Mr. Roberts made the following concluding statement: "The last thing is a comment on mitigating circumstances. I served on a Historic District Commission for eight years. Every project had mitigating circumstances. We are not Pharisees, and the extent that we act like Pharisees, the public will not support us. Thanks."

Ms. Williams apologized if some Commission members believed that the allowance of Mr. Roberts to speak was not appropriate. She explained to the applicant and to the architect that the motion had passed, and said if they believed that there was not enough information presented, for them to confer with Staff.

OTHER BUSINESS

Ms. Williams spoke of the "Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City". She said that the Staff and the Commission had spent a great deal of time putting together the design guidelines and that they will be presented to the City Council for approval on August 12, 1997. She asked the members of the Commission to be in attendance to show support for this document. Mr. Wright said that it would be a public hearing and encouraged the members to make comments of support to so it would be clearly understood by the City Council. Ms. Williams agreed and said that she thought a strong message should be sent to the City Council and the community that the Commission supported the guidelines.

• Ms. Williams inquired if the members of the Architectural Subcommittee would like to keep the Thursday morning schedule or if another morning would be more convenient. Mr. Young said that during the Winter Quarter of the school year he had classes Tuesday and Thursday mornings and could not make that schedule. Ms. Williams also encouraged non-architects to attend because she said that it was an extremely helpful process. Ms. Williams noted that the majority of the Subcommittee members did not want to change the schedule.

Ms. Williams reported that she thought the Commission members would be interested to read the following documents that she would have Staff copy and add them to the next packets: "Supreme Court Decision in Boerne Case" and "The Historic Homeownership Assistance Act" backed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation which is in Congress, that Ms. Williams said, if passed, would be helpful for people who purchase historic properties which are included1on the list of the National Register of Historic Places.

There being no further business, Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. It was an unanimous vote by the Historic Landmark Commission in the affirmative.

The meeting adjourned at 6:15 P.M.