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 Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Lee White, and Elizabeth Giraud.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, and Lee White. Peter Ashdown and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Mr. Simonsen mentioned that all the Commissioners were on the 'field trip and visited the site which was the subject of discussion at this meeting.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Simonsen pointed out a letter from Mr. Thomas Mutter, Chair of the Central City Community Council, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Mutter apologized in his letter for not being able to attend the meeting.
The following statements are from Mr. Mutter's letter: "Housing in the Central City community is a major concern. The community council favors owner/occupied housing.
We are against the loss of single family residences. We are against the degradation of our neighborhood by poorly watched over development projects. One such poorly watched over project that has left a scar on the block for over two years and for two more years to come is between 300 and 400 South, and 500 and 600 East. The Juel Apartments is on this block. The Juel is unoccupied but the condition of the property it sits on does not need to be the eyesore that it is. Someone should be held responsible for the upkeep. Many times the grass and weeks get to be 12-18 inches tall. You made a decision to require a landscape plan after the demolition of one of the apartments that housed people, on that block, in my neighborhood. Why aren't you enforcing that? Putting up a fence, letting what grass there is get long and putting down some rock for a possible staging area is far from what was proposed by the developer.
“This does not enhance this neighborhood which has been held hostage by this development for years and years. A whole lot of housing has been eliminated on this block and nothing has taken its place CCNC was told that residents in Phase 2 & 3 areas could move to Phase 1. This was a large, phased, planned project in order not to displace residents. Everyone is gone."
Ms. Giraud asked if she could address the letter. Mr. Simonsen asked Ms. Giraud to express her thoughts. Ms. Giraud said that she talked to Mr. Rob Fetzer who is with the new development company, which is the third or fourth development team who has worked on the Emigration Court project. She said that there are issues that have to be worked out with the Mr. Orion Goff, the Building Official because he is interpreting the building codes differently than the previous Director of Building Services. Ms. Giraud said that she would be in contact with Mr. Fetzer.
Ms. Giraud indicated that the Juel Apartment Building could not be demolished until the documentation process is completed and that a landscaping plan has been submitted.
There was some discussion and it was noted that Mr. Ken Holman was no longer the developer of the Emigration Court, Phase I, project, but Mr. Fetzer had worked for Mr. Holman, and the new developer is committed to building the project as approved.
Ms. Giraud stated that the City is having a problem with the lack of landscaping on vacant lots. She said that there is a concern about putting in sod during a drought. Ms. Giraud talked about drought-tolerant alternatives to sod.
Mr. Simonsen pointed out that Ms. Stephanie Duer in Public Utilities put together a list of drought-tolerant planting material like in the demonstration garden on the grounds of City and County Building and is available to the public.
Mr. Simonsen remarked that when the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed landscaping plans, attention should be paid to the materials and how much maintenance would be required for the vacant property to be well maintained.
Mr. Fitzsimmons talked about the enforcement issue.
Mr. Christensen stated that he did not believe that City government would mind waiting until September or October to lay sod if a property owner made a good faith effort to flattened and smooth out the vacant parcel getting it ready for the sod and the sprinkling system. He said that by the tone of Mr. Mutter's letter, that preparation is not being done on the Juel property. Ms. Giraud said that was correct.
Ms. Giraud said that the people are supposed to post a bond for landscaping so if a developer does not to follow through, the City would have the money to do the landscaping.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the Commission needed to follow up on Mr. Mutter's letter. Ms. Giraud said that she would assess the situation.
As there were no additional remarks, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Ms. Giraud excused Mr. Zunguze for not attending the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to approve the minutes of the July 7, 2004 meeting, as amended. Ms. White seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. Heid abstained. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 013-04. at 269 No. "A" Street. by Diane Stewart. represented by MJSA Architecture. requesting approval to renovate the existing buildings. and construct an addition to the primary house. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Gasparik was not able to be at the meeting so Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Giraud did not give a full overview of the project. However, the following is a synopsis of the staff report:
The owners of this house at 269 "A" Street are requesting approval to renovate the existing buildings and to construct a 1, 824 square foot addition to the primary house. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District and is zoned SR-1. The proposed work is being referred to the Commission for review because of the scope of the project and the street visibility of some of the proposed alterations.
The home was designed by architect A.B. Paulsen and was constructed in 1937. Previous alterations include the addition of the porte-cochere and an addition on the east elevation at the northeast corner of the house in 1980.
The proposed work includes the following: 1) The construction of a two-story addition to the north end of the house; 2) The removal of the porte-cochere and the addition of a two-story entrance feature; 3) Reorientation of access to the garage/guesthouse; 4) Substantial remodeling of the garage/guesthouse; and 5) The revision of the site features of the property, including the driveway, patios, gardens and removal of the tennis court.
The House
The proposed north addition to the main house will add laundry, storage and hall space in the basement level. On the main level, the addition will provide space for a library, family room, a maid's room, and a secondary stair to the upper level. On the upper level, the addition will expand the bedroom and will provide a new bath and closet.
From the exterior, the north addition will include the extension of the existing colonnade, with wall openings to match the size of those of the house. The roofline will match the hipped profile of the house, and a colonnade, balcony and French doors will characterize the north elevation. The northwest corner of the house will consist of two-story glazing in an aluminum frame, powder coated to match the color scheme of the house. The same window system will replace the window on the southwest corner. All of the existing windows, with the exception of those in the two corners mentioned previously, will be replaced with Loewen aluminum clad French push-out casements that have divided lights. The majority, if not all, of the existing windows do not appear to be original to the house.
The applicant is also proposing to alter the fascia and eave details to match those indicated in the original drawings, and to extend these reconstructed details on the additions.
The applicant wants to remove the porte-cochere, which is not original, not part of the historic period of the house, and was constructed in 1980. The applicant is proposing a two-story addition on the entrance, with symmetrically-placed windows, an arch and columns framing the door, and a pediment outlined with limestone. The applicant proposes to replace the one-story addition at the north end of the east elevation, which was also constructed in 1980, with the one-story portion of the north addition. The addition will have a balcony with a metal, powder-coated rail, limestone posts, and five French doors to accommodate access from the second story.
The Garage/Guesthouse
The garage has always contained a guesthouse. Currently one set of double garage doors is accessed from "A" Street; the second set is accessed from the circular drive. The applicant proposes to remove the circular drive and have both sets of double doors accessed from "A" Street. The metal railing on the second-story balcony would be supported by limestone columns that would flank a niche. The garage doors on the south elevation would be replaced with a one-story hipped-roof, covered with standing-seam copper, and a multi pane single door flanked by two windows.
On the west elevation, the applicant proposes to replace the existing openings with an arched colonnade (one-story), French doors with sidelights, and vertically-oriented, multi-pane windows. This elevation would be oriented to the proposed site changes.
Proposed Site Changes
The applicant proposes to remove the existing tennis court and replace it with a pool, paving material, and formal garden. The rest of the landscape changes will create a formal, symmetrical layout, and will include new paving materials.
Requirement of the Zoning Ordinance
Section 21A.34.020(G)(1-12) 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.
Staff determined that the following standards are pertinent to this application:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;
Staff's discussion: The applicant is proposing alterations and additions that respect the character defining features of the property: Its stucco material, the overall massing, its unusual orientation on the lot, and the roofline. The proposed construction would add features, such as the two-story pedimented addition on the street elevation, but the new features are either consistent with existing elements, or are replacing those that are not of the historic period.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City offer the following guidance:
8.1 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
Staffs finding of fact: The character-defining elements of the property will be preserved and reinforced by the proposed project. The applicant meets this standard.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects;
Staff's discussion: The applicant is proposing to restore some of the architectural features that were lost, such as the original cornice, fascia and gutter system, which are illustrated on original plans of the guesthouse. The new features, such as the colonnade, will match those that already exist. New features, such as the replacement windows, are compatible with the style of the house yet will read as non-historic elements. They respect the original openings in size, but the original windows themselves are gone.
Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;
Staff's discussion: Although unlikely, the proposed work is reversible. The additions are compatible in size and scale with the existing structure. While the addition will be visible from the street, it is at the side and rear and is thus on secondary elevations. The proposed two-story entrance addition replaces an element that is not historic. The two-story glazing on the northwest corner of the building help sets the addition apart from the original block of the house, and thus make it distinguishable from the historic building.·By continuing the colonnade and the classical features that are already part of the house, the additions will be visually compatible with the classical features of the house. The established massing and orientation will not change and the exterior materials will be similar to those of the existing buildings. The windows and door openings are consistent in scale and size to those currently used. The light pattern and sash details will be a departure from the existing windows that are not associated with the historic period of the house.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City offer the following guidance on the siting, massing, size, and scale of an addition:
8.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Set back an addition from historically important primary Facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Keep the addition visually subordinate to the historic building. If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than the historic building, set it back substantially from significant Facades and use a "connector" to link it. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
8.3 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
8.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition shall be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a differentiation between historic and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original building and the addition also may establish a more sound structural design to resist earthquake damage, while helping to define it as a later addition.
8.5 Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building. For example, if the building historically had a horizontal emphasis, this orientation shall be continued in the addition.
8.6 Do not construct a new addition or alteration that will hinder one's ability to interpret the historic character of the building or structure. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the building is inappropriate. An alteration that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the building is inappropriate. In addition, an alteration that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation on the historic style is inappropriate. An alteration that covers historically significant features is inappropriate as well.
8.7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition shall not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.
8.8 Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition. Painted wood clapboard and brick are typical of many traditional additions.
8.9 Minimize negative technical effects to original features when designing an addition. Avoid construction methods, for example that would cause vibration that may damage historic foundations. New alterations also should be designed in such a way that they can be removed without destroying original materials or features.
8.10 Use windows in the addition that are similar in character to those of the historic building or structure. If the historic windows are wood, double-hung, for example, new windows should appear to be similar to them. Depending on the detailing, clad wood or synthetic materials may be considered.
Staff's finding of fact: The design of the addition takes steps recommended by the Historic Landmark Commission's design guidelines to ensure that the essential form and integrity of the building would not be impaired. The addition and alterations are compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features, and differentiate the new work from the old. The addition would be reversible. The proposed work meets this standard.
12. Additional design standards adopted by the historic landmark commission and city council.
Staff's discussion: The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City includes an extensive discussion on additions to historic structures. Specific guidelines that are applicable in this case are noted in the discussion of each standard. It is staff's opinion that the proposed project is in keeping with all of the standards in the design guidelines.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed work meets the applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Giraud offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed and further recommends that final approval be delegated to Staff if any minor revisions or additional details are required by the Commission."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.
Mr. Parvaz stated that the landscaping plan did not show the land use, the fences, the retaining walls, the grading, or other issues. He asked if the landscaping was part of this package. Ms. Giraud said that it was. Mr. Parvaz questioned why the landscaping was not reviewed by Staff as per the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. Ms. Giraud responded that she was sorry that Staff had not reviewed the landscaping. Mr. Parvaz asked if she was going to address the landscaping issues and she suggested directing those questions to the applicant.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Max Smith of MJSA Architecture, representing the owner, Diane Stewart, was present. He circulated copies of colored renderings of the proposed landscaping and site plans for the property. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Smith corrected the numbers stating that the original footprint of the house, including areas under a roof, such as the big porch and the porte-cochere is 3, 709 square feet. He noted that the proposal would add 1, 824 square feet rather than 5, 200 square feet.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking if the owners of the property planned to use the buildings for residential or commercial purposes. Mr. Smith said that it would become the Stewart's residence.
• Mr. Christensen noticed the original bathrooms from the 1930s. He said that it was not within the purview of this Commission to monitor interior features but it looked like all the original bathrooms would be changed. He asked if there was any interest on the part of the owner in having those bathrooms documented. Mr. Smith said that it had been discussed. He said that they have photographed them extensively. He added that they are really "quite wonderful".
• Mr. Simonsen inquired if any historic photographs were among the submittals for this project. Mr. Smith said that he contacted relatives of the builder and the original owner trying to locate historic documents. He was given the original blue prints of the house, which Mr. Smith said has been extremely helpful. Mr. Smith talked about the design of the house and the said that no historic photographs were found. Mr. Smith talked about the different designs of the main residence and the ancillary buildings. He added, "That gets into the narrow entablature above the big columns." He said that was the starting point for the renovation. Mr. Simonsen said that the proposal looked like a fair attempt to bring the buildings into more of a uniform appearance. Mr. Simonsen noted that the buildings would be altered substantially and inquired if Mr. Smith had determined what the original or early design attempts for the house have been. Mr. Smith said that it is the desire of his client to see the two buildings be redesigned and the architect said that he has been moving in that direction. He said that the project was clearly trying to unify the two buildings to make them look like they are part of the same project. Mr. Smith said that the use of the glass block was shown on the blue prints so it is known that was an original feature. However, he said that the decorative ornamental iron work was believed to have been installed in the 1980s.
• Mr. Christensen pointed out that the LOS Church on 100 South and 600 East was also designed by A. B. Paulsen and recalled the original glass block that was used. Mr. Christensen said that Mr. Paulsen obviously was very comfortable working in that early Moderne look with straight walls and lots of glass block. He asked about the roof pitch and if that would change. Mr. Smith said that the roof pitch would not change. He talked about the raising of parapet walls and an internal gutter that would be installed. Mr. Smith passed around a photograph of the property, as well as additional plans. He said that he discovered there have been major alterations to the frieze and the soffit. Mr. Christensen said that this home had never been owned by people who could not afford to make any changes. Mr. Smith agreed. Mr. Christensen asked how the new addition would be differentiated from the older section of the house. He pointed out that the wall structure of the house is concrete and steel studs would have to be driven. Mr. Smith said that there would be a vertical line at the joining of the concrete and the steel stud structure to take into account the differential expansions of those two materials. He said that they contemplated building the addition out of concrete, but decided not to because when he talked to the previous owner, she mentioned that the concrete portion was drafty and subject to temperature changes. Mr. Smith said that the house has the original mechanical system in it but he found numerous auxiliary heaters so the system was not efficient. He added that his client would like to improve the mechanical efficiency with a high tech system, which was one reason why the windows would be replaced with more efficient windows. Mr. Smith indicated that the concrete walls would be insulated.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the material on top of the columns which was contrary to what the plans show. Mr. Smith said that the intent is to do limestone. Mr. Parvaz asked if the garage would have the same band of limestone around the windows and for other edging details. Mr. Smith said that was correct. Mr. Parvaz asked if the columns were metal. Mr. Smith said that the columns are wood. He explained that when the tornado ripped through the house a few years ago, some of those columns fell out. He said that a contractor split those columns and put a steel tube column inside. Mr. Smith said that that steel would be put inside the columns tied to a steel structure above to resist another tornado if one should come through. Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any settling problems with the foundation, especially on the west side. Mr. Smith said that they have not discovered any problems. When Mr. Parvaz inquired about the proposed outside stairways, Mr. Smith said that both stairways actually would go onto different properties and mentioned that the stairways were supposed to have been deleted. He said that the owners own several pieces of property on that slope and are in the process of trying to acquire the other parcels contemplating properly vegetating that very steep hill down to City Creek. He mentioned that he did not bring the drainage plans but that all the drainage would run to the retention area at the lowest point of the property.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired about the roof material. Mr. Smith said that historically it was probably cedar shingles because pieces were found in the attic. However, when the house was re-roofed in 1989 slate was put on. Mr. Smith said that the roof structure was not adequately engineered because the additional weight had caused some sagging problems. He said that they intend to rebuild the top of the roof structure and actually raise the roof about 9-1/2 inches by running new structural members on top. When Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired about the stucco, Mr. Smith said that he did not know what was originally on the house, but a cementious smooth stucco would be used and not a synthetic material. He added that they would find out when they start taking off the exterior materials because the test holes were not productive. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the chimneys would stay in place. Mr. Smith said that there has been much discussion regarding the chimneys. He also mentioned that many of the trees and plantings were "overgrown and junky" and they would be cleaned out while maintaining the bulk of the screening material.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the colonnade was original. Mr. Smith said that the colonnade was on the original blue prints, which he circulated among the Commissioners and Staff. Mr. Smith said that would be one of the modifications. Ms. Mickelsen talked about the existing landscaping and inquired if the pine tree by the garage would remain. Mr. Smith said that the Scotch pine would remain. Ms. Mickelsen said that the balcony would not be as nice without the existing trees. Mr. Smith was in agreement. The discussion led to all the holes that had been cut into the walls and underneath the porch trying to find the answers as to how the buildings were structured and the materials used.
• Mr. Parvaz talked about the difference in the landscaping plans and asked Mr. Smith to make some clarifications. Mr. Smith said that the gates on the east wall would be modified so they would not be wide enough for a vehicle. He also said that after conferring with Building and Transportation Officials, the driveway on the south side would be eliminated, although the plans still reflect it. Mr. Garr Campbell, the landscape architect, would like to keep that access for landscaping equipment because there would be almost an acre of cultivated gardens to maintain.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
+ Mr. Glen Camomile, who resides next to the Stewart residence, said that he was quite pleased with the plans because it will elevate the property value. He talked about the noise and trash outside his bedroom window and asked what he could do about it. Mr. Camomile said that he knew this will be a long project. He also mentioned that it looked like some of the trees were on his property. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the issue of which Mr. Camomile spoke was not within the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission; however, he knew that Building Services had specific guidelines about noise and trash and will abate those issues. He said that Mr. Chamomile’s concerns have been noted and was certain that Staff would coordinate with the Building Officials to try to resolve the situation.
Upon hearing no additional comments from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the
hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting. Mr. Simonsen said that he would entertain a motion at any time.
Executive Session.
Mr. Simonsen said that it was surprising to find out that there was not more documentation and photographs available on a house of this magnitude.
Mr. Christensen there has been substantial changes to the house. He mentioned that when he walked into the house, it was difficult for him to sense that it was a 1937 house because of the extensive remodeling. He said that he did not believe there would be much loss of a historic structure. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that although the front of the house would disappear, characteristics of the rest of the house were strong.
Ms. Giraud stated that she came to her conclusions in the staff report because she believed the character-defining features are the placement on the lot, the unusual view and orientation of the house, the concrete construction, the pitch of the roof which may or may not be original, the placement of the window openings and their size, the colonnade, and the relationship of the guest house to the main house. She said that even though there will· be many changes, those characteristics would still be in place. Ms. Giraud said that she could not come up with anything that would be really detrimental to the house and the streetscape. She believed the proposal would be compatible to the property.
Mr. Simonsen said that he found it interesting that the arched fanlights would be replaced with flat transoms, but added to the carriage house, especially the leaded glass.
Mr. Christensen pointed out that one of the unique features of the house is the windows on the corners. He stated, "The house seems to be fighting within itself and probably always has." He talked about the different styles and said that it appears like the owner was trying to make it a Classical Revival house. A short discussion followed regarding the many different styles and designs that the house reflects.
Ms. Mickelsen questioned the windows at the southeast corner of the house. Mr. Christensen said that those windows would no longer have the appearance of running together.
Since there were some additional questions, it was the consensus of the Commission that the meeting be re-opened so the applicant could address some of the questions. Mr. Simonsen re-opened the meeting to the public.
Mr. Smith said, we fought the corner windows for a solid month. By the time we put the addition on there will only be two corner windows left on the southeast corner." He mentioned that he had drawings of the proposed elevation. Mr. Smith said that he thought the windows would look "bizarre". He also agreed with Mr. Christensen that the house was fighting itself. Mr. Smith said that the doorway on the south was as Moderne as Georgia Revival. He mentioned that the architects have been contemplating whether or not to recommend retaining that door. He said that it fits with the house.
Mr. Christensen inquired if there would be any problems if that door needed to be wider. Mr. Smith said, "None whatsoever". Mr. Christensen again pointed out other Moderne buildings designed by Mr. Paulsen. Mr. Smith talked about other doors that did not line up with the windows or other elements.
Ms. Mickelsen expressed her concern about the loss of the corner windows because she believed they are character-defining features. She said that the corner windows echo the corner windows on the other side, giving the interior an "open feeling". Mr. Smith said that the corner window in the carriage house could remain.
Mr. Parvaz talked about the alignment of the columns in the colonnade. Mr. Smith said that columns do not match the rooms behind them. Mr. Simonsen said that some have to do with the view.
The discussion continued regarding other interests of the house.
Ms. Heid was concerned the Commission was going beyond its purview.
Mr. Simonsen talked about how much easier it would be if there were historic photographs which would make it easier to discern what was original to the house. Mr. Smith said that he understood all the original information was destroyed. He reminded the Commissioners that from about 1937 to the 1970s were the "dark ages" when "we threw things away that has historic merit today''.
Mr. Fitzsimmons said he was comfortable where it has gone and where it is going so far.
The Commissioners continued to discuss the architectural features of the house.
Ms. White said she believed that the porte-cochere was completely out of character. She thought there was much sensitivity to the total design to make the whole project flow and she thought it was a good design.
Ms. Mickelsen agreed and said that it was a "beautiful design" but did not believe one of the basic characteristics of the original architecture should be erased. She added that she did not think it said anywhere in the Historic Landmark Commission's guidelines not to preserve original elements. Mr. Smith said that he could work with the client on some of these issues. Ms. Giraud said that it sounded like the client was willing to work with Mr. Smith to save the window on the southeast corner, as well as the door on the south side.
As there were no additional questions for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen re-closed this portion of the meeting and continued in the executive session of the meeting.
Mr. Parvaz pointed out once more that some of the changes in the landscaping did not show on the plans. He added that there were many issues with the landscaping. Ms. Giraud said that the standards for landscaping in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City in the Avenues section, relates to the streetscape not to the rear of the property. Other properties the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed were discussed where landscaping was an important part of the property.
The discussion continued as the members of the Commission pondered over the character-defining features of the house.
Mr. Simonsen said that there were many issues relating to this project, such as the windows on the corners of the house, introducing such a strong pediment at the entrance seemed to be out-of-character with the house, maintaining the electrical arch on the south entrance, preserving some of the Moderne elements, the new garage entryway, and the landscaping.
First motion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved in Case No. 013-04 that the request by Diane Stewart, represented by Max Smith, at 269 No. "A" Street to renovate the existing buildings, and construct an addition to the primary residence that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the project as proposed based on Staffs findings of fact, and further recommend that final approval be delegated to Staff, if any minor revisions or additional details are required by the Commission, which are 1) that some effort be made to preserve the Moderne aspect of the guest house by simplifying it somewhat to reduce the amount of new limestone and to leave the corner window, subject to review by the Staff and at their recommendation return to the full Commission for final approval; 2) that the south entrance be preserved in the main house; and 3) that the landscaping be subject to Staff review. Ms. White seconded the motion.
The discussion continued clarifying the motion. Final amended motion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved in Case No.013-04 that the request by Diane Stewart,
represented by Max Smith, at 269 No. "A" Street to renovate the existing buildings, and construct an addition to the primary residence that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the project as proposed based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation, with the following conditions: 1) Guest house (garage): That some effort be made to preserve the Moderne aspect of the guest house by simplifying it somewhat to reduce the amount of new limestone, to leave the corner window, and preserve the chimney, subject to review by Staff; 2) Ma.in House: That the south entrance be preserved in the main house; 3) Landscaping: That the landscaping be subject to Staff review; and 4) Final approval: That final approval be delegated to Staff and if any minor revisions or additional details are required by the Commission, Staff would make the recommendation whether or not the project would return to the full Commission for final approval. Ms. White's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Ms. Mickelsen abstained and Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
(Ms. Heid left the meeting at 5:47P.M.)
OTHER BUSINESS
Legislative Intent.
Ms. Giraud mentioned that she had missed two days at work because she attended the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions in Indianapolis, Indiana. She said that the Legislative Intent was in process. Ms. Giraud said that the transmittal letter was completed and signed and the copies would be made for the City Council. She said that after the copies go to the City Council the Legislative Intent would be up for public examination.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if there would be a public hearing at the City Council meeting. Ms. Giraud said that the City Council would have a briefing, which would not be open to public comments. However, she said that eventually there would be a public hearing at a City Council meeting.
Ms. Mickelsen encouraged the Commission members to attend the City Council meetings. Mr. Simonsen agreed and said that the Commissioners could contact their City Council member.
Mr. Christensen said that the City Council will have their vote but ultimately what hangs in the balance is a vote of confidence to continue, or would the Commission be dissolved. Ms. Giraud said that she did not look at the City Council voting on something. She said she believed that the Legislative Intent would be a vehicle to open up a discussion.
Ms. Giraud gave the following explanation: The City Council offered up some concerns and the Planning Division is providing a response. The Planning Division's recommendation was that the Historic Landmark Commission would not become a Committee of the Planning Commission. However, that the appeals from the Historic Landmark Commission would go to the Planning Commission then be referred to the Land Use Appeals Board. That is a compromise. The Historic Landmark Commission believes that it is in line with the National Standards. The Historic Landmark Commission wants to see families be able to accommodate their needs and that has been accomplished by allowing garages and additions. She said, "That is why I am protective of garages and pretty liberal about them, as well as additions." The reason why there is a Staff review is because we do not want to delay a development. There are things that need to be modified, such as changing the demolition ordinance. The underlying zoning is not conducive in some parts of the district and is out of sync with historic preservation. Need to update the surveys in the local historic districts, which would take quite a bit of money and Staff. In comparison to other cities, the Salt Lake City Planning Office has fewer Staff for the amount of districts. There is a need for a preservation plan to identify the priorities of the Historic Landmark Commission. If a community wants to become a district, how would the Commission make that determination? Without the Legislative Intent, preservation issues will not move forward.
Mr. Christensen said that it was comforting to hear Ms. Giraud make that summarization. He said that it has been his impression that there were certain forces in City government that would like to disfranchise the function of this Commission.
Mr. Simonsen said that he believed that Staff was forthright with the responses to the questions. He said that the City Council would have to determine the merits of the response.
Ms. Giraud said that the Planning Division made a recommendation and any changes of the ordinance would have to go through a public process. She said that preservation is rather "crippled" by dissatisfaction on both ends of the spectrum. Ms. Giraud stated that there were important preservation issues that needed to be changed and the Legislative Intent would open the door to discussion.
(Ms. White left the meeting at 5:53P.M.)
Ms. Mickelsen stated that it seemed to her that the Historic Landmark Commission has become more accommodating to applicants. Mr. Christensen noted that the Commissioners were careful in how they chose every sentence during the public hearing. He said that he would be willing to table an issue to get clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Christensen referred to previous cases and past experiences where he believed that the Historic Landmark Commission lost the "public relations" battle, even though ordinances and guidelines were followed.
Ms. Mickelsen mentioned that there is a change in how the Historic Landmark Commission is working. Ms. Giraud said that things will change in buildings and compromises will be made.
Mr. Fitzsimmons said that he believed the characteristics of a neighborhood were more important than the individual pieces within the neighborhood. He added that one could be a little flexible.
The discussion continued regarding the Legislative Intent and other preservation issues.
(Mr. Parvaz left the meeting at 6:05 P.M.)
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Christensen moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:10P.M.