SALT LAKE CITY
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
The field trip was cancelled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Amy Rowland, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Sarah Miller, Oktai Parvaz, and Soren Simonsen were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Robert Young. Mr. Young announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Young asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes from the June 7, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson, unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Young, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes from the June 21, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson, unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Young, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 019-00, at 464 South 600 East. by East Downtown L.L.C., represented by Carrie Fugett, requesting that the Historic Landmark Commission make a determination as to whether or not the "Bill and Nada McHenry House" is considered a "contributing structure" in the Central City Historic District. The applicant has submitted a request to demolish this building in order to construct a new commercial structure.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He said that Mr. McHenry died on August 9, 1999 and Mrs. McHenry passed away three weeks later. Mr. Knight indicated that East Downtown, L. L. C., the successor owners to Hermes, subsequently purchased the house from the McHenry estate. He said that the East Downtown, L.L.C., represented by Ms. Carrie Fugett, submitted an application to demolish the house in order to construct a new commercial building on the corner.
Mr. Knight said that at the time the historic district was created, in 1991, this house was one of a number of historic structures on the block. He said that the survey completed at the time the district was created, rated this house as a contributing structure in the district. Mr. Knight pointed out that since that time, the other historic buildings on the block were demolished to make way for the existing shopping center. He stated that the surrounding streetscape had been so substantially altered since the building was determined to be contributing, staff believed that it would be appropriate for the Historic Landmark Commission to verify if this should be still considered a contributing building. Mr. Knight declared that this determination would then drive the level of review by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Knight stated that if the building is determined to be noncontributing, a notice of demolition would be sent to the surrounding property owners within 85 feet, to the community council chairs, and to the list of "interested parties" maintained by the secretary of the commission. He added that if no objections were received within a 14- day waiting period, the City would issue a demolition permit.
Mr. Knight then stated that if the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the building is contributing, then the demolition request would be heard by the Commission after a notice was sent to the surrounding property owners within 300 feet, as well as the others mentioned above, and then the property would be posted.
Mr. Knight reported that the "McHenry House" was originally slated for demolition, but the owners, Bill and Ellen McHenry were reluctant to leave their long-time home. He said that Hermes was able to purchase a right of first refusal on the property, and constructed the new buildings around the McHenry's house. However, he said that the developers built a tall masonry wall to buffer the house from the adjacent shopping activity. Mr. Knight disclosed the fact that the building was removed from the demotion application, although the Historic Landmark Commission staff report said, "The residential structure at 464 South 600 East will remain as an interim use until a later date when the applicant will return to the Historic Landmark Committee to request approval for its demolition. There is no intention to incorporate this last residence into the project permanently."
Mr. Knight talked about the strong sentiment among residents at the community council meeting to see the house saved, and either to maintain its residential use or to convert it to a commercial use. He said that the Central City Community Council voted to establish a subcommittee to investigate alternate uses for the building. Mr. Knight indicated that Mr. Matt Wolverton, Vice Chair of the community council, chairs the newly-formed subcommittee and spoke of the E-Mail message, which he circulated to the members of the Commission, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Knight reported that the zoning ordinance defines "Contributing Structure" and "Noncontributing Structure" as follows:
Contributing Structure: A contributing structure is a structure or site within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in Subsection C(2) of this section and is of moderate importance to the city, state, region, or nation because it imparts artistic, historic, or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character-defining features intact and although minor alterations may have occurred, they are generally reversible. Historic materials may have been covered but evidence indicates they are intact.
Noncontributing Structure: A noncontributing structure is a structure within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District that does not meet the criteria listed in Subsection C(2) of this section. The major character-defining features have been so altered as to make the original and/or historic form, materials and details indistinguishable and alterations are irreversible. Noncontributing structures a/so include those which are less than fifty years old.
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should evaluate the contributing status of this house by analyzing the standards in Section 21A.34.020.C.2 Criteria for Selection of an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Site, which states: The Historic Landmark Commission shall evaluate each parcel of property within a proposed H Historic Preservation Overlay district or the parcel of property associated with a landmark site. Individual parcels within a proposed district, the district as a whole and landmark sites shall be evaluated according the following:
a. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering, or culture associated with at least one of the following:
i. Events that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or
ii. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state of Utah, or nation; or
iii. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect of master craftsman; or
iv. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City.
Staffs findings of fact: This building is part of the Central City Historic District, which is significant under subsections (i), (ii), and (iii) of this standard as one of the early neighborhoods of the city, as a physical example of Salt Lake City's evolution from an isolated, agrarian community to an industrial and commercial society, and as a collection of architecturally significant buildings from the first quarter of the twentieth century. This house is also the longtime home of Bill and Nada McHenry, owners and namesakes of the popular cafe located at the corner of 600 East and 500 South.
b. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Knight stated that the National Park Service addresses the different aspects of historic integrity extensively in the National Register Bulletin 15: How to apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. The following is a short distillation of each of the elements of integrity:
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic even occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved.
Staff's findings of fact: The house maintains integrity of location because it remains on the property on which it was originally built.
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscaping architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials.
A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies, as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as, 1) the structural system; 2) massing; 3) arrangement of spaces; 4) pattern of fenestration; 5) textures and colors of surface materials; 6) type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and 7) arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.
For districts, design concerns more than just the individual buildings, within the district. It also applies to the way in which buildings, sites, or structures are related. For example, 1) spatial relationships between major features; 2) visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plantings; 3) the layout and materials of walkways and roads; and 4) the relationship of other features, such as statues, water fountains, and archeological sites.
Staff's findings of fact: Considered individually, this house maintains integrity of design because it has retained its historic function (residential) and the arrangement of massing, fenestration pattern, texture of surface materials, and style of ornamental detailing all remain intact. The block upon which this property sits, has changed substantially, however, from its original design and from when the district was created. The urban design pattern of single/multi family homes and small commercial and institutional uses with uniform street setbacks and regular placement along the street no longer remains intact, and integrity of design within the context of the district is no longer maintained.
Setting: Setting is the physical environment of an historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historic role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which a property is positioned in its environment can reflect the designer's concept of nature and aesthetic preferences. The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade. These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property, but also between the property and its surroundings. This is particularly important for districts.
Staffs findings of fact: The integrity of setting for these properties is not maintained. The block once epitomized the neighborhoods that were developed in Central City during the early part of this century as part of the "shift in the economic structure of the community from an agriculture based community to that of an industrial and commercial society," as noted in the national Register nomination for the Central City Historic District. Sanborn Insurance Maps for this block indicate the number of structures that once occupied the block, and their gradual decline and demolition beginning with the efforts at urban renewal in the 1950's and 1960's, and ending with the demolition of the final six historic buildings in 1994. As the only remaining historic structure on this block, and one of the two remaining historic structures on the two blocks facing 600 East, the "McHenry House" is overwhelmed by modern encroachment.
Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area's sense of time and place.
A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant features must have been preserved. The property must also be an actual historic resource, not a recreation of a recent structure fabricated to look historic. Likewise, a property whose historic features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not eligible.
Staffs findings of fact: By and large, the house retains its integrity of materials. No historic photos of the building were available, but the only alterations to the building that are apparent are out-of-period metal replacement windows on the front facade and an enclosed porch.
Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in construction or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finished or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques.
Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joinery.
Staff's findings of fact: The workmanship on this building is typical of that found on buildings at the time of construction.
Feeling: Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character.
Staff's findings of fact: The integrity of feeling is no longer intact on this building. This is due to the encroachment of Fred Meyer and other nearby commercial structures. A feeling of what was a very residential area in the early 1900's and was a mixed residential/small scale commercial area in 1994, has been lost.
Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character.
Because feeling and association depend on individual; perceptions, their retention alone is never sufficient to support eligibility of a property for the National Register.
Staff's findings of fact: The building is associated with Bill and Nada McHenry, individuals who have achieved local cultural significance as the proprietors and the namesakes of the cafe located across the street at 479 South 600 East. The cafe, however, is the primary site associated with Bill and Nada McHenry.
c. The age of the site. Sites must be at least fifty years old, or have achieved significance within the past fifty years if the properties are of exceptional importance.
Staff's findings of fact: The house was built c.1903 and meets this requirement. Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff finds that the house meets the ordinance's standards in terms of age and significance. Although the integrity of the individual house remains intact, the surrounding streetscape has been so altered that the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of design, setting, association, and feeling are irreversibly affected. Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission find that this building is a noncontributing structure in the district."
A short discussion took place clarifying staff's findings.
The applicant, Ms. Carrie Fugett representing East Downtown L.L.C., was present. She said that her brother, Nick Vidalakis, and her family has owned property on the bock for 45 years. Ms. Fugett pointed out that her brother had "an emotional attachment to the area". She talked about the "exodus" of people moving out of central city into the suburbs. Ms. Fugett declared that her family was very close to the McHenry's and had many family functions together.
Ms. Fugett said that her brother was the CEO at Hermes before that company was sold. She added that "back in those days, you did handshakes for an agreement." Ms. Fugett said that "Hermes had the right of first refusal". She said that East Downtown L.L.C. also owns the property on which the cafe is located but that her brother did not plan to sell that property. Ms. Fugett stated that she had no financial interest in the property.
Ms. Fugett stated that the family would like to construct a new building on the property and incorporate it into the family center. She said that the "McHenry House" was too small for a commercial venture and was not conducive as a family home. Ms. Fugett said that the family was "certainly sensitive to what the neighborhood would like". She said that she had been working with the community trying to find a sensible solution. Ms. Fugett noted that the subcommittee of the community council offered to find a tenant for the house in order to save it from demolition. She said that the family wants to be "good neighbors".
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark 7Commission:
• Ms. Rowland led the discussion by asking for clarification who owned the "McHenry House". Ms. Fugett said that the entire block was owned by East Downtown L.L.C., which is a family partnership.
• Mr. Christensen inquired if the tenant, that the community council is attempting to find, would live in the house or use it commercially. Ms. Fugett responded by saying that it was for a commercial tenant. She said that the family wanted to demolish the house because it was not large enough for commercial use and not the kind of building that could be remodeled. Ms. Fugett added that the restaurant building could be made larger to obtain more square footage.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich stated that she wanted to know more about the reuse plan for the new building if the house was demolished. Ms. Fugett said that the proposed site plan, attached to a memorandum from Mr. Vidalakis, was included in the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
Ms. Lois Brown, a resident of the area, stated that she had been active with the community council for 25 years or more. She said that there have been many studies made on the historic homes in the area. Ms. Brown talked about the commercial encroachment, especially on the subject block. She said that the council has great concern about the preservation of residential buildings in the area. Ms. Brown talked about the work and the difficulty having the Central City Historic District declared. She said that the community realized that every home in the area would not continually be preserved. Ms. Brown noted that there were a number of rented homes owned by Hermes that deteriorated until many of them were destroyed. She said that she knew that the demolition was not because there was no need for the homes at that time. Ms. Brown stated that Hermes managed to get an approval to destroy the remainder of the homes on the block, except for the "McHenry House", and build the Fred Meyer store.
Ms. Brown continued by saying that Hermes was required to pay an alleged $250,000 into the housing mitigation fund. She said that she assumed that it went into the City's housing trust fund. She said that she would like an answer to the following questions: "How much was that mitigation fund and did it go to the general fund or the trust fund? How has it been used since then?" Ms. Brown suggested that these questions be considered and the entire matter be explored. She recommended that the home be preserved and not be destroyed, and an appropriate use be determined for the building.
Ms. Valerie Price, a resident in the area, stated that she was serving on the Central City Community Council's subcommittee and was speaking in behalf of the community council. She presented some of the recommendations and suggestions that the subcommittee formed, such as: 1) allow the building at 464 South 600 East to be demolished; 2) do not allow the building to be demolished; 3) keep the building as a residential structure; 4) use the structure as a bed and breakfast; or 5) use the structure for offices, retail, or other commercial operations. Ms. Price talked about the small cottages on 700 East across from Trolley Square that have been restored and converted into retail spaces. She said that the wall could come down and the structure could still be part of the family center.
Ms. Price reported on some of the comments made by the community at the community council meeting, such as:
1. Bill McHenry was a longstanding and important neighborhood figure and it would be tragic to tear down a home he fought so hard to keep standing;
2. The house and the cafe property are important to the neighborhood and all of the customers who so fondly remember "Bill and Nada's"; and
3. In addition to being a very nice historic home, it is the symbol of the only honest "hold out" against the destruction of all the old homes for commercial encroachment.
Ms. Price said that the subcommittee had been working with Ms. Fugett to find a solution to the building and "we thank her for working with us". She suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission postpone the decision to declare if the building is a contributing or noncontributing structure for a six-month period, giving the community more time to find a solution that would be financially feasible for a tenant and the owners of the building.
Ms. Price stated that if the Historic Landmark Commission decides that the building is a noncontributing structure and the building is allowed to be demolished, the following are some "verbal" agreements that the subcommittee had with Ms. Fugett: 1) that East Downtown L.L.C. be sensitive to the neighborhood in the design of the new building; 2) keeping the neighborhood "pedestrian friendly", especially when more people would be using the light rail system being constructed on 400 South; 3) more walkways going into the Fred Meyer complex making entrance easier for families and senior citizens; 4) not allowing more national chain stores in the area; 5) promoting small local business; and 6) encouraging the vitality or urban renewal.
Ms. Price concluded by saying that in the interim period the building and the grounds need to be maintained.
Mr. Matt Wolverton, a resident of the area, stated that he is Vice Chair of the Central City Community Council, and also a member of the subcommittee. He said that he prefaced everything Ms. Price had to say and hoped for a "win win" situation for the developer and the neighborhood. He pointed out some of the following bylaws that were developed by the Central City Neighborhood Council:
The purpose of this corporation shall be as follows: special emphasis on the
Central City area as defined below:
To work with other groups, agencies, and organizations toward the purpose of the corporation to improve existing housing, educational, economic and environmental conditions in the community, and to organize the community toward these purposes.
To eliminate poverty, promote neighborhood awareness, promote the well being of, and establish a better relationship among the residents of the council area. The council shall work with problems in housing, health education, youth government, physical environment, and other community problems that the council may be concerned with in the future. These objectives shall be accomplished without regard to race, sex, creed, or color.
The Central City Neighborhood Council promotes the well being of the residents who live within the area served by it, and seeks and invites the participation of all residents regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin.
The Central City Neighborhood Council may, by appropriate action on behalf of the residents, study, support, oppose, make recommendations and take other action on community matters of policies that affect the residents served by the Central City Neighborhood Council. Its official status does not diminish the right of individuals, on their own behalf, to speak, act, or organize in opposition the decisions of the Central City Neighborhood Council and seek City recognition as a separate organization, but no other organization has a right to call itself the Central City Neighborhood Council.
Mr. Wolverton said that he had made a commitment to support the locally owned small neighborhood businesses. He said that the community council wants to preserve all the existing housing in the neighborhood and mentioned again the small houses that have been preserved, restored, and renovated into commercial retail and office spaces.
Mr. Wolverton said that he had the following questions for Ms. Fugett and East Downtown L.L.C., 'What is your impression of the neighborhood regarding the family center? What does the historic district mean to you as a developer? What does a historic district mean to the neighbors in the area as you continue to develop with your vision?" He said that the taxes collected in the name of commercial development should be earmarked for further building in the immediate neighborhood where the neighbors have already made sacrifices, rather than going to the City.
Mr. Wolverton presented a portion of the proposed update to the Central City
Master Plan regarding the light rail system on 400 South:
"The architectural landscaping, street improvements, and land use types have created a new "synergy" for neighborhoods. It potentially creates opportunities for greater social interaction and centers of activity. Transit oriented districts will stimulate building rehabilitation, new construction, and redevelopment in areas of the community where change is feasible, especially where residential neighborhoods benefit by having alternative modes of transportation than an automobile."
Mr. Wolverton said that the neighboring residents are concerned about the increasing residential densities without the consideration of the existing neighborhood characteristics, assembling property and the removal of single family residential structures, and about the high populated tax base in residential neighborhood areas.
Mr. Wolverton said that history was repeating itself and referred to the block across the street where landowners had been purchasing parcel by parcel and the consolidation of properties, leaving the neighborhood with boarded-up buildings. He said that over the years many commercial residential buildings in the central community have been demolished changing forever the urban character and quality of the area. He said that the reasons for such destruction include "designing for the needs of a vehicle rather than for people". Mr. Wolverton stated that historic districts and landmark sites contribute to commercial by allowing tax credit benefits and special funding mechanisms to support the rehabilitation and preservation of the community. He added that funds could be sought to renovate and to restore the home.
Mr. Wolverton said that buildings in historic districts need to have legitimate tenants occupying the property to prevent vandalism and transient problems and should be projected as a resource. He recommended that property owners that abandon structures to developers need to maintain the properties until sold or other remedies are made. Mr. Wolverton said by an inspection to the McHenry property, hypodermic needles and transients sleeping on the back porch were found. He provided the details of the inspection report by the City's Building Services.
Mr. Wolverton re-emphasized the community council's position on the McHenry property, which was previously stated. He concluded by thanking Ms. Fugett by working with the subcommittee in this matter.
Ms. Hermoine Jex, an interested resident, stated that she was involved in the formation of all the historic districts in Salt Lake City. She said that she was assigned to document all the historic properties from 700 East to 400 West, and from 900 South to the northern city boundary. She added that it took her a long time to accomplish that. Ms. Jex talked about how 700 East evolved to the commercial "takeover" and how 600 East would be permanently preserved, such as the medians, the parking strips, the residential element, and the trees and landscaping. She said that since that time, the Central City Historic District has "continually been raided". Ms. Jex said, "Some developers can't grab the land fast enough for commercial interest". She stated that "the Bill and Nada McHenry House is a contributing structure and should not be removed or demolished. The maintenance of all trees around that house gives atmosphere and keeps the feeling of 600 East that was promised".
Ms. Jex said that 600 East was not to have been a commercial street and the left-hand turn status off 400 South should be investigated. She noted that it had been reported that no left-hand turns would be allowed from 400 South onto 600 East. Ms. Jex stated that the City should never have zoned the entire "Fred Meyer" block as commercial.
Mr. Willy Littig, a concerned resident, stated that the zoning on other blocks on 600 East also had been changed to commercial and that he agreed with Ms. Jex that 600 East had been raided. He said that he wanted to relay his wish for the Historic Landmark Commission to consider the "McHenry House" as a contributing structure. Mr. Littig said that McHenry property represented a "folkloric" restaurateur that lived in this house with his wife and he believed it was an important landmark. He talked about some of the buildings that used to be in the area, including an old church. Mr. Littig spoke of the possibility of preserving the house but moving it onto a vacant lot in the district.
Mr. Littig expressed his concerns for the reuse plan and the design of the proposed building. He suggested that if the "McHenry House" is eventually destroyed, that any newly proposed building gets moved to the corner as an anchor for the block on 500 South. He said, "I think demolition would be an insult to all of us."
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Knight clarified in the ordinance that once a demolition application is received, the Historic Landmark Commission has to act upon it within 45 days, so for postponing the Commission's action for six months was not an option to be considered. He added that the Commission could defer a demolition for up to one year, if the findings determine that conclusion. There was further discussion regarding the process of a demolition application.
Ms. Giraud addressed the issue of the original survey of the "McHenry House" and due to the changes on the block and in the neighborhood if the property would still be considered a contributing viable structure.
Ms. Giraud also pointed out that the "McHenry House" was not included in the district of the National Register of Historic Places because not all areas of the Central City Historic District were included in the National Register district. She added that the national register district was shaped like an "hour glass" and did not include the Hermes blocks. Ms. Giraud said that determination was made by SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office).
Mr. Knight added that most of the block across the street where Barnes and Noble is, also was not included in the National Register district, but the properties on which the cafe and the boarded building behind the cafe were located were in the National Register district and eligible for tax credits.
The discussion that followed focused on the standards listed in the ordinance that the Historic Landmark Commission has to following in making a decision relating to the "McHenry House".
Mr. Young agreed that the context of the site of the "McHenry House" has been obliterated. However, he said that there are many cities across the country that have similar historic buildings, relating to a specific person, that have been restored as the results of "hold outs" to large commercial encroachments. Mr. Young said, "Anyone of us could think of a number of urban locations where there is an historic house in the middle of the downtown fabric." He referred to the vulnerable Brooks Arcade building in downtown Salt Lake City as an example, where the neighborhood context had totally changed. Mr. Christensen also used the Beehive House and the Lion House as examples and said that no one would consider tearing those buildings down. Mr. Young warned the Commissioners of setting a precedent in this case.
Mr. Christensen stated the following, "I think it's a bit offensive to me when a developer claims that it is so hard to work with the property that no longer has its context when that developer caused the problem that they are now complaining about. It was this developer that ruined the original context of this house. It would be a nice exercise, especially where the owner of East Downtown L.L.C. seemed to have had a good friendship with Bill and Nada that he honor them and honor that memory by repairing the house and making it an economic viable part of this complex. It's not impossible and it would not be phenomenally expensive." He said that he thought it would be a nice "carrot" to extend to those neighbors if the developer cares about the neighborhood in which he is trying to do business.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she thought that the "McHenry House" was a buffer between the commercial and the residential neighborhoods in the district. She said that she believed the house could become a "very valuable commercial space".
Mr. Wilson stated that he believed that "Bill and Nada's Cafe" was more historically significant than the residence. He said that the house is a very small portion of that block and he believed that allowing the demolition of "that very small portion" would not set a precedent for structures such as the Brooks Arcade. Mr. Wilson inquired if conditions could be attached to the motion stipulating that a replacement building be located on the corner rather than on the same site as the "McHenry House", as Mr. Littig suggested. Ms. Giraud said that stipulations like that could not be attached to the decision that the Commission had to make as to whether or not the "McHenry House" was a contributing or a noncontributing structure, but if the house is eventually demolished, the Commission would be involved with the design review of any new structure.
Ms. Rowland commented on the staff’s findings of fact regarding the setting and relationship of the "McHenry House". She said that the current relationship of the building with its setting is historically important. Ms. Rowland stated that the McHenry's were "almost folk heroes, than just of the owners of the cafe" because they were making a stand to keep the neighborhood residential. She noted that by seeing the house, one could imagine what the neighborhood was like in the 1890's. Ms. Rowland did not agree with the staff’s findings that the streetscape had been so altered that the integrity of the surrounding neighborhood in terms of design, setting, association, and feeling are irreversibly affected. She said that the criteria did not suggest that the surrounding had to be as it was historically when the house was constructed.
Motion:
Ms. Rowland moved for Case No.019-00 that the Historic Landmark Commission found that the "Bill and Nada "McHenry House" at 464 South 600 East was a "contributing" structure, based on staff's findings of fact, included in the staff report. In addition, the Historic Landmark Commission found that the relationship to the historic structure's setting was also significant and it illustrated a trend of encroaching commercial development in a formerly residential neighborhood. It was seconded by Mr. Christensen. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Wilson was opposed. Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Young, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 020-00 at 634 No. West Capitol Street, by Lewis Downey and Maureen Mooney, requesting approval to construct an addition and to make alterations to the existing house, which is in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the applicants proposed a two-story addition, with approximately 1,800 additional square feet of space (including the garage and mechanical spaces), which would double the size of the house. Mr. Knight said that under the new administrative approval policy, an addition of this size automatically comes to the Historic Landmark Commission for review.
Mr. Knight said that according to the County tax records, the house was constructed in 1948. He added that because the house was, at the time of the survey, considered a "noncontributing" building because it was not at least 50 years old, no additional research was done on the history of the building. Mr. Knight indicated that the house has now passed the "50-year rule" and can be considered a "contributing building" in the district. He stated that the size, form, and style of the house are typical for those houses built during the early post World War II years. Mr. Knight pointed out that the building is clad with asbestos siding with asphalt shingle and rolled roofing. He said that the sloped topography of the lot would allow the two-car garage to be set into the hillside, and the peak of the new two-story addition would only be four feet above the ridge of the original house. Mr. Knight assured the Commissioners that the applicants have been working with the City Zoning Office to ensure compliance with height, yard, and bulk requirements.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G), H Historic Preservation Overlay District, of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which were included in the staff report.
G. 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:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;
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;
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;
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and Preserved;
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be Preserved;
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall 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;
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible;
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment;
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;
10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following:
a. Vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and
b. Any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials;
11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site of H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21.A.46, Signs; and
12.Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council
Summary of staff's discussion: Although the addition basically doubles the size of the footprint of the house, the mass of the addition would substantially be set back from and would be subordinate to the original portion of the house. The two large masses would be connected with the "tower" element. The massing and details to the addition would distinguish it from the historic portion of the building. The windows used should be either wood or clad-wood, with a sash depth comparable to the existing wood windows. Double-hung or fixed sash windows, similar in size and configuration to the existing windows, would be appropriate to the addition. Metal roofs are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and staff believes that its use would be appropriate on this building. The exposed eaves of the historic building would be continued on the new addition.
Although front-facing, attached garages are discouraged in historic districts, they are acceptable where the size and topography of the site make a detached garage impractical. The applicants propose to abate the existing asbestos siding and to apply "Diamondwall" stucco to the entire building. The color of the stucco is considered in this application, since the pigment is an integral part of the material, instead of an applied coating.
Staff's findings of fact: The house substantially complies with the requirements of the zoning ordinance for alteration of a "contributing" structure, with the exception of the proposed windows and doors.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends conceptual approval of this application. Further detail is needed on the proposed windows and doors, the front porch, and retaining wall design, the stucco color and its method of application, and other design elements as the Commission sees fit. These details could be worked through at the Architectural Subcommittee, which could then direct staff to issue an approval. Alternately, the proposal could return to the full Commission for final approval."
The applicants, Mr. Lewis Downey and Ms. Maureen Mooney, as well as their architect, Mr. Carl Gorder, were present. Mr. Gorder circulated a set of drawings that showed more details to the member of the Commission and staff, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Gorder also displayed a color board. There was some discussion by the applicants about the square footage of the house and believed that staff had miscalculated the square footage of the house; it was more like 600 square feet.
Mr. Gorder pointed out that the preliminary drawings showed that when the project was completed, there would only be one original window remaining. Mr. Knight said that, generally, people should keep the existing windows, at least keep the same configuration as the historical windows. Mr. Gorder encouraged some flexibility because he said that all the existing windows are single-glazed and to make them more efficient, the windows should be double panes or adding storm windows. He stated that the applicants want to replace all the windows. Mr. Young said that the front facade of the house, or the facades visible from the street, should retain the original configuration, but there was some flexibility in the rear. He added that the windows in the new addition would not have to match the existing windows in the house, but should be visually compatible.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by inquiring about the shingles. Mr. Gorder said that they are asbestos reinforced cement. Mr. Gorder also said that the facades of both the original house and the addition would be stucco. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich pointed out that the addition would have to be differentiated from the existing house. Mr. Gorder said that he did not know how that could be done. Mr. Jakovcev-Ulrich suggested working out those details in the subcommittee. She also recommended more greenery by the driveway to reduce the amount of hard surface that would be visible from the street. Ms. Mooney said that could be accomplished. Ms. Mooney also said that there are some existing trees and mature landscaping that was not indicated on the site plans. There was some suggestions of using another kind of siding on the addition.
• Mr. Christensen inquired if the code required two garage doors when the garage was visible from the street. Mr. Knight said that could be an issue that the Commission could address. Mr. Christensen said that dividing the expanse of a large single garage door by using two doors would give more of an older traditional look. He mentioned that he liked the arrangement of the glass windows in the addition. Ms. Mooney referred to the proposed metal doors and believed that was a safety issue. Mr. Christensen said that there were some nice looking metal doors available.
• Mr. Wilson asked if the eaves on the existing building would be altered, because it was hard to reveal on the drawings. Mr. Gorder said that the eaves would be extended when the roof is replaced, but that the design of the existing eaves would be maintained when they were replaced.
Mr. Young opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A short discussion followed relative to the issues of this case.
Motion:
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve Case No. 020-00 and refer the applicant to the Architectural Subcommittee meeting for further development of details of the following issues: a) materials and color of the E.I.F.S./stucco, b) roof, c) window, d) driveway, e) grassy slope, and f) landscaping. If these design issues are resolved to the Subcommittee's satisfaction, they could direct staff to issue an administrative approval for the project without final review by the full Commission. It was seconded by Mr. Christensen. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Young, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Rowland so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M.