July 7, 2004

SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION

Minutes of the Meeting Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126

A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Peter Ashdown, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Lee White, Elizabeth Giraud, Janice Lew, and Everett Joyce.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, Vicki Mickelsen, Acting Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Lee White. Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, and Soren Simonsen were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Everett Joyce, Principal Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.

Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Mickelsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.

An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

Ms. Mickelsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the sites.

COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION

Ms. Mickelsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no remarks, Ms. Mickelsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.

REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR

Mr. Wheelwright said that Mr. Zunguze was on vacation this week so there was no report from the Planning Director.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes of the May 5, 2004 meeting. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Ms. White abstained. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case No. 007-04. at 279 South 300 West. by the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church. represented by James Derby. architect. requesting approval for a design for a new entry stairs and sidewalls. elevator doors on the south elevation. and a new north entry and stairwell. The Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.

Ms. Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

Ms. Lew gave an overview of the project:

The Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church is requesting approval for alterations to the building. The alterations are primarily to the west portion of the building, and include replacing the front stairs, installing a new door system in the south tower, and reworking the circulation on the north side of the church. The church is individually listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. The property is located in Downtown Warehouse/ Residential "D-3" zoning district.

The Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church of Salt Lake City is the second house of worship erected by the Greek immigrants in Utah. The first, built in 1905 on 400 West between 300 and 400 South Streets, soon proved too small for the growing Greek community. Work on the new church began in 1923 at the corner of 300 West and 300 South Streets on land purchased from the Sweet Candy Company. The architects were Hyrum C. Pope and Harold W. Burton working with a Greek architect from Chicago, N.A. Dokas. Constructed of burnished-colored brick with one large dome and two smaller ones, the layout of the building is an example of traditional Byzantine design. It is of rectangular construction with two short side wings forming the shape of a cross.

The applicants propose replacing the principal stairway to the building. The existing system includes a suspended slab above a storage area beneath the stairs. The waterproofing in this area is failing and there enforcing is now exposed creating a hazard. For safety reasons, the new stairs would have a granite paving surface with a lower rise, a wider tread, and larger landing. Thus, the stairway would extend an additional seven feet to the west. The new stairs would make it easier for pallbearers to carry caskets into the church for funerals. The wall adjacent to the stair would be constructed of cast-in-place concrete finished with synthetic stucco and crushed granite stone. The top of the walls would have a cast stone capitalization. The lower entrance element would also be re-worked as shown on the plans.

In order to provide an elevator to meet current accessibility requirements, the architects propose replacing the existing lower level window in the south tower and cutting a new entrance for a wood paneled door. The applicants would also like to introduce two new entrance elements on the north side of the building by replacing the lower level windows with new doors. This alteration would provide access to the lower level of the building from the outside and is intended to accommodate circulation patterns for future functions such as the relocation of the museum to the lower level. A larger set of stairs that could be used as an outdoor classroom or gathering space is shown on the plans, as well. The existing steel stairway would be re oriented to facilitate the proposed changes to this space.

In reference to the Zoning Ordinance, all proposed work must comply with height, yard, and bulk requirements of the D-3 zoning district.

The Historic Landmark Commission has final decision authority with respect to this request. In order to make its decision, the Commission must consider the following standards in Section 21A.34.020{G) H Historic Preservation Overlay District of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance:

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;

Staff's finding of fact: The building will remain in use as a church. The application complies with this standard.

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 proposed work will retain almost all of the existing exterior features. The defining architectural characteristics of this building include the roof forms, Corinthian columns, architectural detailing, massing, and stained glass windows with arched tops. Existing window openings on the north and south sides of the building would be replaced to accommodate doorways. However, a minimal amount of historic fabric will be altered on secondary elevations of the building. Although the request is to replace the stairs because the materials have deteriorated, Staff is of the opinion that this modification will not significantly affect the historic character of the building. The new design is compatible with the character of the building.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed work will allow the historic character of the building to remain prominent and meets the intent of this standard.

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;

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed work does not seek to create a false sense of history or architecture. The application complies with this standard.

4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;

Staff's finding of fact: The character-defining features of the building will be maintained in this project. The application complies with this standard.

5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;

Staff's finding of fact: As previously noted, the major character-defining features of the exterior will be preserved. The application complies with this standard.

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;

Staffs finding of fact: The proposed new materials are compatible in composition, design, and texture with the existing materials. The application complies with this standard.

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;

Staffs finding of fact: No damaging surface treatments are proposed. The application complies with this standard.

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;

Staffs finding of fact: No significant cultural, historical, architectural, or archaeological materials would be destroyed by the proposed work. 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;

Staffs finding of fact: Staff finds that the request meets this standard. Some historic fabric will be lost as a result of the proposed alteration, but could be replaced in-kind if removed in the future and properly documented. The new work would use similar materials to ensure compatibility with the historic structure.

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;

Staffs finding of fact: No vinyl, aluminum cladding, or imitation siding materials are proposed. The application applies with this standard.

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

Staffs finding of fact: No additional signage is proposed for the building at this time. The application complies with this standard.

12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council.

Staffs discussion: The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City primarily address residential structures; for this reason, Staff chose not to include discussion of specific guidelines within the text of the report. However, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project is generally consistent with the standards in the design guidelines.

Staffs finding of fact: The proposed project meets the intent of the design guidelines.

Ms. Lew offered the following Staff’s recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the proposed project with the following conditions: 1) This approval is for design only. The request must meet all other applicable City requirements; and 2) Final approval is delegated to Staff."

Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.

Mr. Ashdown clarified that the Historic Landmark Commission would review the doors to the elevator that would be outside and on the steps but the elevator on the interior would not be a consideration. Ms. Lew concurred.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if the storage area under the steps would still be in place. Ms. Lew said that she believed that there would be a storage area at the top of the stairs. Ms. Mickelsen said that some of the plans were not readable. She could not read the width of the doors on the south elevator. Ms. Mickelsen also inquired about the security for the elevator. Ms. Lew pointed out that the architects could address those issues. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that it looked like the doors would be less than six feet wide. There was some discussion regarding the proposed materials for the project. Ms. Lew circulated the original drawings for the project. She said that she did not know if the applicants planned to bring samples of the material.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.

Applicants Mr. James Derby and Mr. Joe Lorenzo, architects, were present, representing the owners. The applicants used a briefing board to further describe the project. A sample board of the materials was circulated.

(Ms. Rowland arrived at 4:13P.M.)

Mr. Derby talked about the cement-based product that is currently covering the masonry sidewalls. He said that the applicants would like to cover the concrete on the existing foundation around the building. Mr. Derby said that the synthetic material was much finer than what was shown on the sample board. He added that it would hold up much better than natural cement-base products. Mr. Derby mentioned that the material came in a variety of colors and finishes and the applicants were proposing to apply the finish in a color as close as possible to match the existing foundation.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic

Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by asking if the material Mr. Derby mentioned would be used in the waterproofing process. Mr. Derby said that it would not; it would be applied to the side walls. Mr. Ashdown inquired about what needed to be done to shore up the waterproofing process. Mr. Derby said that waterproofing was not really the problem. He stated that due to the failure of the existing waterproofing, the underside of the stairs and the wooden structure has completely deteriorated over the years and is no longer in a safe condition. Mr. Derby said that removing the stairs and reconstructing them was part of this application. He indicated that waterproofing materials would be used along with a product called Zypex and concrete so it would act like a "belt and suspender" system. Mr. Derby pointed that there would be waterproofing material over the concrete, as well as in the concrete. He indicated that the owners requested that the concrete surface then be covered with granite treads and risers on the stairway. Mr. Ashdown asked if it would be real granite and Mr. Derby said that it would be real granite.

• Mr. Parvaz inquired if the same material for the tread and risers would be put on the landing. Mr. Derby said that it would be granite. Mr. Parvaz asked if the cast stone on the top of the walls would be replaced with granite. Mr. Derby said that the tops of the sidewall had cast stone on them and would be replaced with matching cast stone. He added that all the column bases all the way across the front are cast stone. Mr. Parvaz inquired if there would be a change in the shape of the columns. Mr. Derby responded by saying that the only changes the applicants are requesting are modifications to the front stairway and the landing to facilitate weddings and funerals. He added that the handrails would be changed to a bronze color railing system, which would be much nicer than wrought iron. Mr. Parvaz inquired further about the proposal for the north side of the building. Mr. Derby stated that the Greek community is in the process of selecting a design team to redevelop a large portion of the property on 300 West and 300 South. He said that the plans are to demolish the cultural hall in the future, on the north, and add a new Sunday School area in that approximate location. Mr. Parvaz clarified that those changes were not part of the current application because there was no drawings, but Mr. Derby indicated that he hoped the Commission would also approve those changes at this time. Ms. Lew said that the drawings just show the stairway. There was some discussion regarding this issue. Mr. Derby said that the existing exit stairs on the north side would be removed and new steps would be created that would lead into a small atrium and go down into the basement which would serve as the Sunday School for the children, and open up the basement area to make it more useable for future functions. Mr. Derby said that the museum also would be re-established in the basement once the remodeling is done. Mr. Parvaz asked if the proposed steps on the north side would be concrete or granite. Mr. Derby said that the proposed steps would be concrete but the retaining wall would be the same material as the sidewalls that are being proposed for the main stairs. Mr. Parvaz inquired if there would be a railing on the wall and Mr. Derby said that there would be a railing. Mr. Lorenzo provided a drawing that gave a better description of what was being proposed on the north elevation of the building.

• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the proposed new doors would be solid wood with glass. Mr. Derby said that the doors would be a patterned stained wood, which would echo the doors at the main entrance as closely as possible. He added that sidelights are proposed to let in the natural light in the elevator area. Ms. Mickelsen asked what kind of security the elevator would have. Mr. Derby said that there was much discussion regarding a variety of things that could be done to help minimize the need for someone to have to physically go around and unlock the door when someone needed to use the elevator. He pointed out that cards would probably be issued to certain parishioners, and ushers would also be available to unlock the door when necessary. Ms. Mickelsen said there is definitely a need for a security system in that location.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the new landing looked like it would be about seven feet and inquired if that would be enough room for the wrought iron fence. Mr. Derby stated that the existing front steps at the sidewalk are actually in the public right-of way and the applicants are proposing to move them onto the church's property so they would be closer to the front stairs leading up to the main entrance. He said that there would still be about 12 to 16 feet in that space. There was some additional discussion as the drawings were examined.

Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no comments from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session.

Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the stairs were necessary to the building and the proposal seemed to be sensitive to maintaining the essential character of the building. He mentioned that the elevator would not make a substantial change to the exterior and the same with the proposal for the north elevation. Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that the planned modifications would not affect the character of the building at all and believed that the proposal was well done.

Motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved that in Case 007-04, a request by the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church for the design review of the alterations to the church at 279 South 300 West, that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the Staff's findings of fact and recommendations and approve the design as presented. Further, that the ·final review and approval would be delegated to Staff after all the City requirements are met. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 008-04. at 753 E. Fifth Avenue. by Walter Brann of Blue Heron Design. representing Thomas and Karen Duncan. requesting approval to remove an existing one car garage and replace it with a two-car garage with storage above. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.

Mr. Joyce 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.

Mr. Joyce gave an overview of the project:

This is a request for permission to build a 576 square foot detached garage with a second level storage area. Walter Brann of Blue Heron Design has submitted said request on behalf of the property owners, Thomas and Karen Duncan. The primary structure on this property is a single family residence. The property is zoned SR-1 (Special Development Pattern Residential District).

The applicant is also proposing to replace the existing wood fence with a new fence along the corner side yard to create a private rear yard area. This fence will be a solid cedar fence 4'- 6" high with a 1'- 6" open lattice design to create a total fence height of six feet. An additional 3' solid cedar fence will be placed along the north edge of the driveway from the garage to the sidewalk. The Staff has given administrative approval for the proposed fencing.

Records indicate that the home on this property was built in 1907. The original owner was Albert R. Barnes. Mr. Barnes was a prominent lawyer and served as the Utah Attorney General from 1908 to 1917.

The house is a single-story brick bungalow. Significant architectural features include a gabled roof supported by brackets. The gable end toward the street has a rectangular attic window and wood shingle siding. The front facade has a full width inset front porch.

There are no previous records of project reviews by the Historic Landmark Commission for this property. Based on the policies adopted in 2000 by the Historic Landmark Commission for administrative approvals, this request has been referred to the full Commission because the finished garage (accessory building) will contain a second level. The proposed garage will be 576 square feet with a second level for storage.

The proposed building is a 24' x 24' two-car detached garage. The 6/12 gabled, asphalt, shingled roof rises to 17'- 0" at the midpoint and 20'- 5" to the peak. The proposed primary wall material will be stained wood shingles. The garage door will be a pre-finished insulated metal door with window panels. The side entrance door will be steel door. The windows on the north, west, and south facade s will be painted, wood clad windows.

The existing single-car garage structure on the north side of the property is slated for demolition. The existing garage structure is small (216 square feet) and not particularly suited for contemporary use as a feasible shelter for the larger style vehicles so prevalent today.

Access to the garage is from "L" Street at the existing driveway location. The proposal maintains the single car width driveway from the street. The driveway approach construction along with curb and gutter will conform to Salt Lake City regulations.

Mr. Joyce referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District Preservation Overlay District of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. He indicated that the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based on the following standards of the ordinance:

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or Planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: The surrounding structures are primarily single-story single family residential units. Several of the units in the vicinity enjoy two-car garages similar in size and mass as the one proposed.

The roof structure on the proposed garage is also compatible with the surrounding structures and the streetscape.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage is compatible with the surrounding structures in the area and will blend in with the surrounding streetscape.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: The proposed garage has been designed in such a manner as to be sensitive and complementary to the historic character of the buildings in the immediate vicinity. Further, the materials chosen, especially the gable brackets and window treatments, are reflective of the materials with which the residence is composed.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage structure, given the proposed facade treatments, is visually compatible with the materials used in surrounding structures, and again blends in well with the surrounding streetscape.

3. Relationship to Street.

a. Walls of Continuity. Facade s and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;

b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;

c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and

d. Streetscape- Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.

Staff's discussion: The relationship of the proposed garage to adjacent structures and open space is typical of the area and will be visually compatible once completed. The subject property is a corner lot with the residence facing Fifth Avenue to the south, and the proposed two-car garage is located where the existing single-car garage is in the rear yard.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage will be constructed and situated in such a manner that the continuity of the streetscape, the rhythm of structure spacing, and street orientation will all be visually compatible.

4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: No subdivision is proposed; therefore, this standard is not applicable.

The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City address accessory buildings in Section 9:

9.1 Preserve a historic accessory building when feasible. When treating a historic accessory building, respect its character-defining features such as primary materials, roof materials, roof form, historic windows, historic doors, and architectural details. Avoid moving a historic secondary structure from its original location.

Staff's discussion: As noted previously, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage on the property. Planning Staff supports this decision for two reasons. First, Planning Staff contends that for the amount of accessory space that would be gained, it would be cost prohibitive to renovate the existing garage. Second, the size of this structure is not conducive to contemporary use as a garage, being very small.

Staff's finding of fact: Staff finds that given its current dilapidated state, the prohibitive cost of repair, its small size, and its role as a secondary structure on the property, preserving the historic garage is not feasible.

9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure.

Staff's discussion: In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for soffits. In the case of a two-car garage, two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed garage will be unobtrusive and will not compete visually with the house. As previously stated, the design and location of the proposed garage will be visually compatible with existing structures on the street, and will blend in with the existing streetscape. The roofline of the garage is similar to that of the residence, and the materials chosen are of those that are allowed and appropriate. The double garage door in this instance is appropriate given the detailed nature of the door panels and windows designed in the door. The Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Staff have approved numerous double garage doors in an effort to make properties in the historic districts adaptable to contemporary use.

9.3 Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure. Traditionally, grates were cited as a separate structure at the rear of the Jot; this pattern should be maintained. The allowance of attached accessory structures is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Staff's finding of fact: Consistent with this design criteria, as shown on the site plan, the proposed garage is located behind the residence at the rear of the lot.

Additional Discussion:

The primary purpose for this review is for design and aesthetic reasons in order to insure the proposed development reinforces the character of established historic districts. In terms of zoning, the applicant shall be required to meet all zoning regulations for an accessory structure in an SR-1 zone at the time of application for a building permit. Planning Staff notes that it appears that the garage will meet zoning requirements given the proposed site plan.

Mr. Joyce offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application based upon the findings as noted in the staff report, demonstrating that the proposal substantially complies with the applicable standards of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, subject to the following conditions: 1) Subsequent to the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant shall meet all zoning requirements and obtain a building permit for the garage; and 2) If any substantial changes are required as a result of other City department requirements, Planning Staff shall remand the proposal back to the Historic Landmark Commission for final review."

Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.

Ms. White asked how high the existing garage was. Mr. Joyce said that the garage was only a single level, but the applicant would have to answer that question.

Mr. Parvaz inquired if the neighbors had expressed any concern about the height of the proposed garage. Mr. Joyce said that he had not received any calls from the neighbors even though the proposed garage would be higher than the existing one. Ms. White asked if the neighbors were notified and Mr. Joyce said that they were.

Ms. Mickelsen stated that the trusses and the wood shingles did not seem to be compatible with the existing residence, which is brick. Ms. Giraud said that historically the garage and the house did not always have to match. Ms. Mickelsen said that was correct but the existing garage matches the house perfectly and that ensemble would be lost.

Mr. Ashdown said that owners were not supposed to imitate prior or historic structures. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that the guidelines for accessory structures are not as tight as with the main residence. She added that it could clearly be recognized as a new structure without imitating the existing garage.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Applicant, Mr. Walter Brann, representing the owner, was present. Mr. Brann said that the staff report identified him as an architect but he was the designer of the building. Mr. Brann said that if the proposed garage were to have a masonry exterior, there would still be wood shingles in the apex area in front. He said that it was the owner's choice to go with the wood shingles. He added that he originally wanted to use brick but thought it was a good economical choice to use wood shingles. Mr. Brann circulated a larger updated set of drawings of the proposed garage and apologized for not getting the drawings to the Commission sooner.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Fitzsimmons led the discussion by pointing out that he believed shingles were on the residence. Mr. Brann concurred and said that he tried to capture the essence of the 1907 craftsman style bungalow. He added that the garage was probably built in the 1920s. Mr. Brann said that there would be a substantial cost increase using brick because of the lintel in front and the wide opening for the garage door. Mr. Brann said that the proposed windows would be handmade using the clear beveled glass windows in the front door of the residence, then replacing those windows with stained glass. He added that the design of the windows would match the windows on the west elevation of the house.

• Ms. Mickelsen asked about the use of the top floor of the proposed garage. Mr. Brann said that it would be used for storage. He said that the attic truss would be dropped in place with the other trusses making a space about 14' -0" x 24' -0". Mr. Brann said that the outer spaces would also be useable for storage. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the owners explored the feasibility of preserving the existing garage. Mr. Brann said that in the wintertime accessing the existing garage was difficult from the house, so the garage was not being used. He mentioned that the owners wanted to cover the area between the house and the garage, but that would be going against the building code.

• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the exposed bay. Mr. Brann indicated that the retaining wall was two feet high on that side which retains the soil bed and the bay would be concrete. Mr. Parvaz asked about the back stairs, Mr. Brann said that the plans show the stairs leading up to the proposed deck going into the garage.

• Ms. Rowland said that she would like to see a detailed drawing or photograph of the proposed garage door. She pointed out that it looked like it had more details than a typical metal garage door. Mr. Parvaz believed that there would be pieces of wood applied to the metal door. Mr. Brann said that the trim would be appliqued onto the door, and the entire door would be painted. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the garage door drawn on the site plans was one single or two single garage doors. Mr. Brann said that it would be one custom-made four-sectional door. He said that he could not put two garage doors in the opening and there was not enough room in the back yard to make the garage larger to accommodate two doors. Mr. Brann said that the code allows 50 percent of the yard that could be used and his plans show that the proposed garage would use 48 percent of the back yard. He indicated that a porch cover for the side door was eliminated. Ms. Rowland asked about the height of the existing house. Mr. Brann said that he did not know. He added that with the way the property slopes the proposed garage would probably be about two feet higher than the existing house. Mr. Brann also said that the proposed garage would be about six feet higher than the existing garage and eight feet higher than the neighbor's house to the north. He pointed out that the driveway is on a slope. Mr. Brann indicated that there were no main windows in neighboring structures that would look over the proposed garage door area. Ms. Rowland inquired about the tree next to the driveway. Mr. Brann said that the driveway would be widened by three feet and shifted to the north. He indicated that it was his personal recommendation to take the tree down, but he was able to work around it. Ms. Rowland stated that she was not entirely convinced that two single doors were not possible. Mr. Brann responded by saying that there was no room to add two more feet to put in a center column for the two single doors.

• Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were criteria for the demolition of historic garages. Ms. Giraud said that there was not. Ms. Mickelsen said that when a survey of historic buildings is completed, are the accessory buildings included. Ms. Giraud said only if they are really significant like a barn or a carriage house. She added that a one car garage, especially if it is not contributing to the house, would not be considered a contributing structure by itself. Mr. Brann said that he considered himself a historian and he could not see any historical value to this particular garage. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that it was a typical garage for its period. Mr. Brann said that it was not functional as a garage. Ms. Giraud suggested not making that a criterion for the Commission's decision, because she would be concerned that it would be reversed. Ms. Mickelsen recognized that some garages could not be rescued. Ms. Giraud said that the size of the proposed garage and the one-half story prevented it from being approved administratively. Mr. Brann indicated that there may have been some consideration to restoring the garage if it had been a two-car garage.

• Ms. White expressed her concern about the size of the proposed garage and that it would be out-of-character with the streetscape. She added that it looked like it would be blocking the neighbor's view because it would be higher than the existing house. Ms. Mickelsen also was concerned that the mass of the garage would be out-of-scale with the neighborhood. Ms. Rowland said it would have the appearance of a two-story building. Mr. Brann stated that the upper story would not be a full story because the attic ridge would be about four feet over the first floor. Mr. Fitzsimmons said there would be a 13-foot wall. Mr. Brann said that the proposed garage would be below the grade level of the house next door. He said that he could point out several garages in the area that are the same size as the proposed garage would be and some that are larger. Ms. Mickelsen said that if the eaves could be dropped on the proposed garage at least the eaves would be more compatible with those of the house.

Executive Session.

The discussion continued regarding the use of two single-garage doors rather than one door. Ms. Giraud pointed out that many garages are approved with one door. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the last garage the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed was a much larger and a more prominent building when they recommended the use of two garage doors. Mr. Parvaz stated that the Historic Landmark Commission needed to be consistent with the approvals, however this proposed building could be an exception. Ms. Rowland said that one door has been approved on garages that could not be seen from the street. However, she said that the owners were planning to keep the narrower driveway. Mr. Ashdown said that it was a corner lot.

Ms. Mickelsen said that she was bothered by the look of the overall wood shingles and believed it was not a "very craftsman-like approach" to building a garage. Ms. Giraud said that the of "craftsman type approach" is quite common in the Avenues.

Ms. Rowland believed that the windows would be more "fussy” than necessary for a garage. She pointed out that removing the windows on the house would have to be approved. Ms. Giraud said that if the garage is approved, then removing the windows from the house should be contingent upon approval of removing sidelights on the house. Ms. Rowland also thinks that Staff should review an actual photograph of the custom garage door, because the drawings do not reflect the true appearance of the garage door.

Ms. Giraud said when Mr. Joyce received that plans, he noticed the proposed fence on the drawings. She said that she did not consider that to be part of this application. Ms. Giraud added that Staff could approve the fence administratively.

There was some discussion regarding the issues of the proposal being directed to an Architectural Committee review before a final decision was made.

First motion:

Ms. White moved to approve Case No. 008-04 regarding the request to construct a detached garage at 753 East Fifth Avenue be directed to the Architectural Committee for review regarding the details of the windows, doors, and the size of the structure for approval.

After a short discussion, Ms. White amended her motion.

Amended motion:

Ms. Giraud pointed out the final approval would be delayed because the applicant would not be on the agenda until August. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that this kind of review had been directed to the Architectural Committee in the past.

The discussion continued. It was pointed out that the Architectural Committee would not review the size of the proposed garage, just the details of the elements. Ms. Giraud said that it appeared that the Commission was more concerned about the height rather that the size. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the proposed garage would be more massive than the existing garage.

Ms. Mickelsen indicated that there was no second to Ms. White's motion so Ms. White withdrew her motion.

Final motion:

In the matter of Case No. 008-04, Mr. Ashdown moved to accept the design as presented for the detached garage with storage at 753 East Fifth Avenue, with the caveat that the dimensions and the feature of the doors and windows be reviewed by the Architectural Committee and then be delegated to Staff for final approval. One door is approved for the garage based on the confinements of the lot and the overall width of the building. Further, subsequent to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the applicant shall meet all zoning requirements and obtain a building permit for the garage. If any substantial changes are required as a result of other City department requirements, Planning Staff shall remand the proposal back to the Historic Landmark Commission for final review. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Mr. Parvaz. Voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland and Ms. White were opposed. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 009-04. at 404 West 400 South. by Big-D Construction. represented by Kerry Arnold. requesting approval to forward a favorable recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council to place the W.P. Fuller Paint Building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources as a Landmark Site.

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. She circulated photographs of the building.

Ms. Giraud gave an overview of the project:

Big-D Construction, represented by Kerry Arnold, is requesting a favorable recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission to the Salt Lake City Council to place the W.P. Fuller Paint Building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources as a Landmark Site. The property is zoned D-3 {Downtown Warehouse/Residential District).

The applicant, Big-D Construction, is adaptively reusing the structure for its corporate headquarters, and is concurrently pursuing listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

Constructed in 1922, the W.P. Fuller Paint Building is notable for its concrete construction, for its role in the manufacturing history of the twentieth-century in Salt Lake City, and for its association with the twentieth century development of Salt Lake City's westside railroad and industrial district.

Adding a site to the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources requires the applicant to meet the standards in Section 21A.34.020{C){2) Criteria for Selection of an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Site of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, and meet the definition established in Section

21A.34.020{B)(4) for a Landmark Site. In addition, because adding a site to the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources is considered to be a "map amendment", the applicant must meet the standards outlined in Chapter 21A.34.020.50.

Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District Preservation Overlay District:

B. Definitions:

4. Landmark Site. A landmark site is any site included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources that meets the criteria outlined in subsection C2 of this section. Such sites are of exceptional importance to the city, state, region, or nation and impart high artistic, historic, or cultural values. A landmark site clearly conveys a sense of time and place and enables the public to interpret the historic character of the site.

Staff's discussion: As described below and in the attached Designation Form, the W.P. Fuller Paint Building was one of the earliest all-concrete warehouses in the city, and is historically significant for its association with the development of the industrial and manufacturing economy that characterized west downtown Salt Lake City in the early twentieth century. Its high degree of physical integrity clearly conveys its association with this development, enabling passers-by to interpret the role the building played in the history of the city.

Staff's finding of fact: The W.P. Fuller Paint Building meets the definition of a Landmark Site.

C. 1. Procedure for Establishment of an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Site. An H Historic Preservation Overlay District or landmark site shall be established pursuant to the procedures for amending the zoning map of this title in Part V, Chapter 21A.50, Amendments and Special Approvals. An application for a map amendment to establish an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or landmark site shall be prepared by the Historic Landmark Commission and submitted to the Planning Commission. Any individual or organization can request that the Historic Landmark Commission consider preparing an application of a landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District. The application shall contain information and recommendations concerning the areas, buildings and premises for areas included in the amendment application.

2. Criteria for Selection of an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Site. 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 to the following:

a. Significance in local, regional, state or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following:

i. Events that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of history, or

ii. Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state of Utah, or nation, or

iii. The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, or

iv. Information important in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City; and

Staff's discussion: Historically, the W.P. Fuller Paint building is significant because of its association with the twentieth-century development of Salt Lake City's west side railroad and industrial district. It is located in an area of Salt Lake which was transformed after the coming of the railroad in 1870 from small family farms to the preferred location for large-scale industries that wanted access to the railroad in order to expand their manufacturing capacities. The Fuller building was a building designed to accommodate both the existing rail traffic and the burgeoning use of trucks as a transportation option.

Architecturally, the building is significant as one of the first all-concrete warehouses in the city. The design for the concrete frame and curtain wall construction probably originated at the national offices of the W.P. Fuller Company in San Francisco, but was executed by local contractors John F. and Henry E. Schraven. The formed concrete support columns were innovative engineering for the Salt Lake City of this period, and modest Art Deco details were an early manifestation of the style, especially in such a utilitarian structure.

Staff's finding of fact: The W.P. Fuller Paint building is significant for inclusion on the Salt Lake City

b. Physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.

Staff's discussion: Definitions of the seven criteria for physical integrity as established by the National Park Service in Bulletin 15 are attached. The physical integrity of the W.P. Fuller Paint Building is addressed below:

Location: The building is in its original location. Bulletin 15 states that "the relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened." The location of the subject property is a key element in defining its integrity, because its original use was dependent on the proximity of rail and truck transportation in what is now the Gateway neighborhood. Its location is also associated with the manufacturing and industrial character of its surroundings during its period of significance (1922- 1954).

Design: Bulletin 15 states that integrity of design "includes such considerations as the structural system; massing, arrange of spaces, pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing" The consultant who conducted the original research on this building, Korral Broschinsky, notes that its walls consist of a concrete frame and curtain wall structure covered in painted stucco, with modest influences of early Art Deco, with multi pane steel sash windows, with a flat roof. All of these features are intact and will be preserved or replaced in kind during the renovation.

Setting: Setting pertains to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. In the case of the W.P. Fuller Building, its historical setting near Pioneer Park, former railroad stations, and other buildings originally used for industrial purposes on major transportation thoroughfares is intact.

Materials: The original materials, the most prominent being the use of concrete and stucco, have not been altered.

Workmanship: Bulletin 15 explains that workmanship is "the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object or site, " and can be applied to the property as a whole or to its individual components. In this case, the most significant example of workmanship is evident in the concrete construction, which is intact and will be preserved.

Feeling: Bulletin 15 states that "feeling is a property's expressions of the aesthetic or historic sense of particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character." The fact that the architectural details, and the massing, materials and fenestration are still evident contribute to the structure's portrayal as an example of early twentieth-century industrial design in a downtown area.

Association: Association is defined as "the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property." The Fuller Paint building is not associated with a particular event but it illustrates the growth and development of the industrial base of west downtown in the first decades of the twentieth century.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard. It conveys physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, as defined by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.

c. The age of the site. Sites must be at least fifty years old, or have achieved significance within the past fifty years if the properties are of exceptional importance.

Staff's discussion: The building was constructed in 1922.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020.50.050 Standards for General Amendments.

A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should consider the following factors:

A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.

Staff's discussion: Creating an Urban Neighborhood: Gateway District Land Use and Development Master Plan and The Gateway Specific Plan are the master plans that pertain to the area in which the subject property is located. The "Rio Grande Sub-district, " in which the W.P. Fuller Paint Building is located, emphasizes the importance of housing in the neighborhood, particularly in historic buildings. While housing is not the proposed use for this historic property, the plan also recognizes how essential it is that uses overlap in the sub-district, and that "it is critical that a mix of uses be encouraged to complement each other in each of the neighborhoods within the Gateway." (p. 6). Within this sub-district, a range of uses currently exists, and new development, such as the hotel currently under construction north of the W.P. Fuller Building, will bring a 24-hour commercial use to complement the daytime use of the construction company.

More specifically, Objective 8 of the Land Use chapter of The Gateway Specific Plan states: Encourage adaptive reuse of historic buildings within the Gateway District. The Gateway District contains a rich array of historic resources that convey the significant influence the railroad has played in the evolution of the Gateway District. The rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings can enrich the fabric of the area while serving to remind us about the history of the Gateway District.

Staffs finding of fact: The proposed application will protect the investment of the current owner, Big-D Construction from alterations that are not compatible with the owner's renovation efforts, reinforcing the role of historic preservation in the Gateway neighborhood. Listing the building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources is in accordance with the City master plans.

B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property;

Staff's discussion: Listing this building on the local register is harmonious with the overall character of the existing development and its immediate vicinity. It acknowledges the historic significance of the building and insures that the efforts currently underway by the applicant to sensitively renovate the building will be protected under the provisions of the "H" Historic Preservation Overlay Zone. Due to its proximity to other historic warehouses and industrial buildings successfully and sensitively renovated in recent years, the W.P. Fuller Paint Building will be another positive example of tile contribution of adaptive reuse to the revitalization of the Gateway neighborhood. Should the applicant vacate or sell the building at a later date, its efforts to protect its architectural integrity while making it functional for contemporary uses will be protected by the Historic Landmark Commission.

Staff's finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.

C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties;

Staff's discussion: Strictly speaking, the listing of the W.P. Fuller Paint Building is specific to this site and will have no effect on adjacent properties. In a more general sense, the support and recognition of this building as being of historic significance to the city, and the associated historic preservation efforts currently underway by the applicant to reuse the building as its headquarters, provide a positive signal of economic stability to nearby property owners and potential investors, and thus should favorably, rather than adversely, affect adjacent properties.

Staffs finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard.

D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and

Staff's discussion: Listing the W.P. Fuller Paint Building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources requires the Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission to evaluate the significance of the property, the physical integrity of the property, and its age (Chapter 21A.34.020(C)(2)). The Planning staff has found, as stated in the earlier text, that the proposed application meets the provisions of the "H" Historic Preservation Overlay Zone.

Staff's finding of fact: The applicant meets this standard, as outlined in the previous text.

E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies and wastewater and refuse collection.

Staffs discussion: Because listing the building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources does not affect the use of the property, the adequacy of public facilities is not related to the proposal. Brad Stewart, of Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department, has stated to staff that he finds no issue with the proposed listing.

Staff's finding of fact: The public facilities and services are adequate, and the applicant meets this standard.

Ms. Giraud offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Based on the findings stated above, the Planning Division staff recommends that the HLC forward a favorable recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council to list the W.P. Fuller Paint Building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources."

Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.

Mr. Parvaz stated that he always has the same question. He pointed out that there was no map with the drawings indicating that the land would be designated as a Landmark Site as well as the building. Ms. Giraud said that she had a legal description and was remiss by not including a map overlay in the staff report. She said that if the Historic Landmark Commission recommended to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council to designate the property as a Landmark Site, she would give the legal description to the City Surveyor to prepare a site map for the City Council. Mr. Parvaz said that the staff report references only the building and the land on which the building is located is literally ignored. He added that the location of the building and its relationship to the property are issues that have to brought before this Commission. Ms. Giraud asked if Mr. Parvaz was referring to the parking lot to the north as open space. Mr. Parvaz said that the building is located on the southeast corner of the property, then asked about the size of the property. Ms. Giraud said that the property is 1.2 acres. Mr. Parvaz said that Big-D could construct a building of some sort in the open space. He then asked what the owners were doing to renovate the building because there were no plans to review. Ms. Giraud said that the architect could explain what the owners were doing with the building. She pointed out that the owners would probably be finished with the renovation by the time the building is listed as a Landmark Site, however, there is a "safety valve" in the fact that the owners have applied for tax credits, so the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as well as the National Park Service would be monitoring the interior, as well as the exterior improvements that are part of this phase. She indicated that the criteria those agencies use is stricter that the City's standards because of the ·financial incentives. Ms. Giraud added that as a Landmark Site, future things would come before the Historic Landmark Commission for review.

Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if the plans for the renovation were accessible to the Commission. Ms. Giraud said that she could obtain the plans, but because the building had not been formerly designated as a Landmark Site it would only be a courtesy to the Commission just like any building that did not have that designation.

Ms. Mickelsen clarified that the Historic Landmark Commission has to determine if the property would be a candidate for landmark status, regardless of the renovation plans and if the Commission could put trust in the tax credit process.

The discussion continued regarding the issues at hand.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Applicant, Ms. Sara Kinsinger, representing Bid-D Construction Company, the owner, was present. Ms. Kinsinger explained that Mr. Kerry Arnold could not be in attendance, but could be reached by phone if necessary.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark

Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by asking if Ms. Kinsinger knew the status of the SHPO application for the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Kinsinger said that she only knew that it had been submitted.

• Mr. Ashdown asked the applicant to share some of the details of the renovation plans with the Commission. Ms. Kinsinger explained the following: The building will be the corporate office headquarters for Big-D Construction Company. The concrete pillars shown in the photographs on the interior would remain. There

would be a skylight down through the middle of the building. The tower would remain and the tile on the exterior would be refurbished. There are some signatures and the date of 1922 on the tiles that will be left as is. Mr. Ashdown asked about restoring the painting of the "Frontiersman" on the north side of the building. Ms. Giraud read from the site work plan that the lettering would be repainted to say "Big-D Construction Company". Ms. Giraud continued by reading that the Big-D logo, which features a full torso construction worker, would replace the "49'r" on the north elevation. She mentioned that many buildings in the downtown area had old advertisements painted on them. Ms. Kinsinger said that the tower would be retained.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if Big-D Construction was replacing the windows. Ms. Giraud said that the windows would be re-glazed but the original steel sash would be retained. Ms. Giraud stated that the proposed rehabilitation of the interior would include the removal of non-historic partitions. She read that the new office partitions will be replaced and the center space will remain open. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that there is an overhead door on the 400 West Street side and noticed some new concrete. He inquired if there would be a service entrance to the building. Ms. Kinsinger said that area on 400 West will be closed off and used as a training room. She said that there would be no service entrance to the building.

• Mr. Parvaz asked the applicant's representative if she had any idea when the restoration would be finished. Ms. Kinsinger said that the owners hoped it would be ready by mid November. Mr. Parvaz talked about the size of the land and asked if any other buildings would be added to the property. Ms. Kinsinger said that no other buildings would be added but a parking lot would be constructed. Mr. Parvaz cited an accessory building on the property. Ms. Kinsinger said that the old accessory building would be demolished. Mr. Ashdown noted that it was nothing more than a shed.

• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the footprint and the fenestration of the original building would be retained and Ms. Kinsinger said that they would. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the building would be painted the same two-color scheme. Ms. Kinsinger said that she did not believe that the building would be two-toned in color other than the lettering. Ms. Giraud stated that in the tax credit application, it says that the building would be painted to match the original color as far as it can be determined':

Mr. Parvaz asked more questions about the tax credit application. Ms. Giraud pointed out again that the application had already been submitted to SHPO.

Ms. Giraud left the meeting to retrieve the site plan from her office.

Executive Session.

Mr. Parvaz said that he would have to abstain because the land had been disregarded and all the focus has been on the building. He added that the description of the building and the site should be integral parts of the application. Mr. Parvaz said that it was important to see the relationship of the building and its associated property. He said that the Commission needed to see where the land comes together. Ms. Rowland said that Mr. Parvaz was making a good point that the property should always be included in the registration.

Mr. Fitzsimmons said that when he went around the building he could not see anything on the site around the perimeter of the building that looked like it was historic. He said that there were no other buildings in the area that would be affected by this project.

Mr. Ashdown said that it was not the purview of this Commission to decide open space issues. He said that the land around the building would be turned into a parking lot. Mr. Parvaz expressed his concern again that the owners could build something else on the property.

Ms. Rowland said as far as she understood, when a building is designated as a Landmark Site, the entire parcel on which the building is located is also designated. Mr. Ashdown stated that if the property is designated as a Landmark Site, then any alterations the owners would want to do would have to be reviewed by this Commission.

Mr. Fitzsimmons said that he was elated that the building is being restored and that the key features of the building will be retained. Ms. Mickelsen agreed and said that it is a very significant building in the area.

Motion:

Ms. Rowland moved to approve the request by Big-D Construction for Case No.009·

04 that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council to place the W.P. Fuller Paint Building at 404 West 400 South on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National

Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 010-04, at 235 South 1300 East. by Wells Fargo. represented by Paragon Builders Inc. requesting approval to rebuild the roof and canopy of the drive-through facility at the Wells Fargo Bank building. The property is located in the University Historic District.

Ms. Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

Ms. Lew gave an overview of the project:

Wells Fargo is requesting approval to rebuild the roof and canopy of the drive-through facility of the Wells Fargo Bank Building. The property is located in the University Historic District, which was locally designated as a historic district in November of 1991. The base zoning of the property is CB (Community Business) the purpose of which is "to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods."

The University District consists primarily of turn-of-the-century residential structures, which are generally similar in mass and scale. However, commercial buildings are concentrated along 1300 East between 200 and 300 South Streets. Businesses along 1300 East Street include restaurants, several banking buildings, a convenience store and other small stores. Many of the businesses are located in former homes. Out of period buildings and alterations have also influenced the appearance of the neighborhood. Although the specific uses have changed over the years, the area continues to be a small-scale, pedestrian oriented commercial node. According to the site form prepared for this property in 1991, the Wells Fargo building was evaluated as a noncontributing structure.

The applicant is proposing to rebuild the roof and canopy of the drive-through facility of the bank building. The canopy collapsed last winter. A hipped roof with a gable front would replace the original flat roof of the existing structure. A gabled roof is also proposed for the canopy. A standing seam metal material is proposed for the roofing material, and a new stucco fascia and aluminum soffit would be installed.

Ms. Lew stated that the Historic Landmark Commission has design review authority with respect to this request. In order to make its decision, the Commission must use the following standards in Section 21A.34.020(H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance:

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure, which states: In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council, and is in the best interest of the city.

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facade s. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structures and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: The proximity of the University of Utah has influenced the development of the neighborhood and this is reflected in the district's diverse architectural fabric. The residential structures are generally similar in mass and scale. The commercial area, various apartment buildings and institutional buildings exhibit larger building massing. Due to the architectural diversity of the block, the range of roofing types is great. The proposed hipped roof form is similar to that of existing structures in the district and compatible with surrounding buildings. The Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City recommends such an approach:

Standards for New Construction.

11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Visually, the roof is the single most important element in an overall building form. Gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms in most residential areas. Shed roofs are appropriate for some additions. Roof pitches should be 6:12 or greater. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. They are appropriate for multiple apartment buildings, duplexes, and four-plexes. In commercial areas, a wider variety of roof forms may occur.

Design Standards for the University Historic District.

13.54 A new roof should appear similar in form and scale to those of typical houses seen historically in the block. Pitched roofs, either hip or gable, are preferred. Slopes should be within the range of those seen historically in the block. The depth of the overhang of the eaves should also follow historic precedent. This is especially important on bungalows, where the overhang is fairly deep.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed roof forms are similar to those seen traditionally and meet this standard.

2. Composition of Principal Facade s.

a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facade s. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

Staff's discussion: Although the function of a roof is to protect a structure from the elements, it also is important in defining the overall character of a building. New roofing materials should be similar in color, texture, and other visual qualities to those seen historically. In most cases, alternative roofing materials such as standing seam metal have been determined incompatible in Salt Lake City's historic districts because of their texture, vertical pattern and reflectivity. The design guidelines make these recommendations with respect to compatible building materials:

Standards for New Construction.

11.15 Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block. This will reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district.

11.16 New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing. Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those used historically. They also must have a proven durability in similar locations in this climate. Metal products are allowed for soffits and eaves only.

Design Standards for the University Historic District.

13.53 Use building materials that appear similar to those seen historically. Appropriate building materials include: brick, stucco, and wood. Because of the large number of bungalows in the district, many foundations and posts are constructed of stone. Using stone, similar to that employed historically, also is preferred. Using fieldstone, veneers applied with the bedding plane in a vertical position, or aluminum or vinyl siding are inappropriate.

13.54 Use roofing materials that are similar in appearance to those seen historically. Asphalt and wood shingles are appropriate. Concrete tiles also are appropriate because they convey a scale and texture similar to materials employed historically. Large panelized products, such as standing seam metal, should be avoided. Colors should be muted; the overall texture of a roof should be consistent throughout the building.

Staff's finding of fact: No changes are proposed to the composition of the principal facade. The proposed standing seam metal roofing material, however, fails to convey the same visual appearance of those materials seen historically, and thus is inconsistent with this standard. A standing seam metal roof does not possess the same physical properties (such as composition, texture and pattern) or is it compatible with the wood or asphalt shingled roofs found in the district.

3. Relationship to Street.

d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district.

Staff's finding of fact: The orientation of the main facade on 1300 East Street has not changed and is consistent with the streetscape.

4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).

Staff's finding of fact: This application has no subdivision issues.

Ms. Lew offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Based upon the comments, analysis and findings of fact noted above, Planning Staff does not support the use of a metal roofing material in this case. Therefore, Planning Staff recommends the Historic Landmark Commission approve a modified request, subject to the following conditions: 1) This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements; and 2) Planning Staff shall be delegated final approval authority. An appropriate roofing material shall be submitted to Planning Staff prior to issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness."

Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.

Ms. Mickelsen asked when the building was first constructed. There was some discussion regarding the status of the building. Mr. Ashdown said that it stated in the staff report that the building is listed as a non-contributing building. Ms. Mickelsen said that it was non contributing when the survey was made at the time the area was designated as an historic district in 1991. Ms. Lew said that she did not know when the building was constructed. Ms. Rowland thought it was constructed in the 1970s.

Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired about the roofing material on the Market Street Grill which is across the street. Ms. Giraud said that it was either asphalt or shingles. Someone from the audience said that it was asphalt.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.

Applicants, Mr. Brent Vincent, architect, and Mr. Matt Rindlisbacher, contractor with Paragon Builders, representing the owners, were present. Mr. Vincent said that the building had been remodeled several times. He thought the drive-up and the major portion of the building was built in the 1960s or 1970s due to the kind of truss that was used, which was famous for failures. He added that there have been several failures of this same truss, such as the Smith's on 3300 South a few years ago. Mr. Vincent said that a good portion of the building also has the same truss and that was why the owners opted to propose a pitched roof for protection from future problems with the snow pack.

Mr. Vincent said that the owners chose a standing seam metal roof because that is a corporate standard of Wells Fargo for a sloping roof. He mentioned the metal roof on the building next door but it was determined that the awnings were metal and not the roof. Mr. Vincent said that the corporation chose that type of material for the corporate standard because it has a long lasting ability. There was some discussion regarding the roof material.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic

Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by asking if the proposed color for the roof was also a corporate color. Mr. Vincent said that the color was not standard and if the Historic Landmark Commission would like a different color there would not be any problem with changing the color. He suggested that if the Commission would feel better about using a patina copper roof or a bronze color roof, they would be willing to work with the Commission. Mr. Ashdown inquired if the proposed standing seam metal roof could be changed. Mr. Vincent said that Wells Fargo wanted to have the metal roof for lasting durability in this environment. Mr. Ashdown asked if Wells Fargo owned the building and Mr. Vincent said that Wells Fargo owned the building. Mr. Ashdown inquired about the signage and asked if there was a monument sign on the property. Mr. Vincent said that there is an existing backlit sign on the building but no monument sign. He said that an additional directional drive-up sign would be added. Ms. Lew said that the signage was not part of this application, that the signage would be reviewed in the future. Mr. Ashdown asked if there were any other concerns regarding the design or shape of the proposed project. Mr. Vincent said that the canopy would actually be smaller than the one that failed.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if the existing roof was failing now. Mr. Vincent said no but the canopy did fail last winter. He added that the same truss was used for about two-thirds of the roof structure for the building, so the owners were concerned about that possibility. Mr. Vincent said that the reason why the roof on the building did not fail was because there was enough heat loss through the roof that the snow melted off the building, but it did not on the canopy. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked what the material would be in the main arch on the street elevation with the Wells Fargo name on it. Mr. Vincent said that stucco would be in the gables only.

• Mr. Parvaz stated that the entire neighborhood has to be considered when a standing seam metal roof has been proposed. He indicated that if the Historic Landmark Commission accepts this roof material for one building in the historic district, then more people would want that type of roof. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that if standing seam metal roof is not appropriate would the owner consider another kind of roofing material. Mr. Vincent said that they would use asphalt shingles. Again, he said that the corporation would rather use a metal roof because it lasts twice as long as asphalt shingles; however, they would do with whatever the Commission recommends.

• Ms. Mickelsen said that the canopy took a chunk of the building. Mr. Vincent said that there was a metal column in that corner that came down with the canopy. He assured the Commission that the damaged area of the building would be rebuilt using the same design; it will look the same. Ms. Mickelsen asked if any of the drive-through lanes would be eliminated. Mr. Vincent said that two lanes would be eliminated. Ms. Mickelsen noticed on the plans that part of the parapet would be removed. Mr. Vincent said that the roof is not all one level because there had been additions added to the main building. He said that in order to make all the roof the same height, some of the parapet would have to be taken off. Mr. Vincent indicated that a crown molding would be added as a decorative trim. Ms. Mickelsen said that it would not be that visible from the street. Ms. Mickelsen said that she could not visualize how the building would look with a sloping roof. Mr. Vincent said that by putting the gables, the arches, and the crown molding will help. Ms. Mickelsen stated during the 1980s, things were "slapped" on the front of a building and that was considered remodeling. She added that there were many examples of that on the block.

Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.

The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Walter Woodbury, who resides next door to the subject property, stated that he and his wife live directly through the fence at the rear on University Street. He said that they have been looking at that black roof on the bank for a long time and that he was "personally delighted" that the Wells Fargo would put a "good-looking" roof on that building. Mr. Woodbury said that according to the plans, the mechanical systems would be placed on the roof. He asked that some kind of decorative fencing be installed that would hide the mechanical systems so they would not be so visual. Mr. Ashdown asked if the existing mechanical equipment was on the roof and Mr. Woodbury said that it was. There was some discussion as the plans were viewed again. Mr. Woodbury said that he would rather see asphalt shingles on the roof rather than a standing seam metal roof.

Upon hearing no additional comments from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session.

Mr. Ashdown clarified that there are no additional windows being added. Ms. Lew said that she was not aware of any additional windows. Ms. Mickelsen said that it was her understanding that from the eaves on down, it would stay exactly the same.

Ms. Rowland said that higher quality architectural grade shingles would last a very long time. Mr. Fitzsimmons noted that they were not equal to metal for durability. Mr. Wheelwright said that the shingles are usually guaranteed for 20 years.

Ms. Giraud talked about the building as a non-contributing structure in an historic district. She said that she would like to see the building stay the "modernistic" building that it is in the historic, but at the same time the Historic Landmark Commission was bound by an ordinance. Ms. Giraud noted that when Staff looked at the proposal in terms of the streetscape and came to the conclusion that a sloped roof would be appropriate and would meet the standards in the ordinance. She added that allowing the standing seam metal roof, Staff believed that it would open up a "Pandora' s box". She said that there was no precedence for that type of roof historically, in the City's surveys, or in any of the research done in the district. Ms. Giraud said that even though the building is a commercial non contributing structure, located especially on this block, it states in the University Historic District section of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City that a standing seam metal roof should be avoided and it gives a clear direction to use asphalt. She added that it sounded as if the applicants would be willing to do that.

Motion:

Mr. Fitzsimmons moved that the request by Wells Fargo to rebuild the roof and canopy of the drive-through facility at 235 South 1300 East, for Case No. 010-04, be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission subject to the recommendations made by Staff which does not support the use of a metal roofing material in this case. This approval is for design only and that the project must meet all other applicable city requirements. Further, Planning Staff should be delegated final approval authority and an appropriate roofing material shall be submitted to Planning Staff prior to issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Historic Landmark Commission also recommends that the owner of the building consider adding a screen for the mechanical deck. Ms. White seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

It was the general consensus of the Historic Landmark Commission to take a break. Ms. Mickelsen called for a short break at 5:56P.M. At 6:05P.M. Ms. Mickelsen resumed the meeting.

Case No. 011-04. at 331 South 600 East. by Matthew W. Driggs Family Ltd. Partnership, requesting approval to construct a four-car carport and storage unit. The property is located in the Central City Historic District.

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 gave an overview of the project:

The Matthew W. Driggs Family Ltd. Partnership is requesting approval to construct a four-car carport and storage unit in the rear yard of the property at 331 South 600 East. The primary structure on this lot is a contributing structure, originally constructed as a four-unit dwelling. Polk directories indicate that it has been used for commercial purposes since 1975 and it is currently used as a law office. The property is zoned RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District), and is located in the Central City Historic District.

The Site/Survey Historic Site Form indicates that this building was constructed in 1902, and was designed by architect, John Headlund. Born and educated in Sweden, Headlund came to the United States in 1880, initially settling in Kansas. After working in Colorado, he settled in Salt Lake City in 1889, and lived in the city intermittently for several more years. In addition to several residences, such as the subject property, he designed such noteworthy landmarks as the Immanuel Baptist Church (401 East 200 South), the WoodruffRiter-Stewart house (225 No. State Street); and the George and Marian Cannon house (720 E. Ashton Avenue).

The former four-plex is brick. Its character-defining features include, but are not limited to, a flat roof with a parapet ornamented with dentils and a strong molding profile, keystones over the second-story windows, and a one-story porch sheltering the entrances.

Because the applicant is proposing to replace an existing accessory use with one of similar size and use, and because the primary building has been used for commercial purposes prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinances in 1995, the proposed replacement carport meets the City's zoning requirements.

Based upon the criteria established by the Historic Landmark Commission for administrative approvals in 2000, Staff decided to refer this to the full Commission because it is a carport associated with a contributing structure.

The proposed building is 24'- 0" x 48'- 8", with four open parking bays and room for storage in the enclosed fifth bay of the structure. The proposed material of the walls would be split-face CMU (concrete masonry unit) on the exposed faces. The proposed structure is located at the rear of the property one foot away from the rear lot line, and abuts the service area for the shopping center on 400 South associated with Wild Oats and Hollywood Video. Access to the parking area would be from the existing driveways from 600 East.

Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance:

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facade s. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: The subject property is the only contributing building left on the east side of the street between 300 and 400 South. The proposed location of the carport is behind the primary structure, and has little visibility from the street. It is very similar to other multi-car carports that the Historic Landmark Commission has approved, most recently the carport at 478-482 E. Fourth Avenue (November 13, 2003). Its height and width, proportions, and scale are subordinate to the primary structure, and are compatible to the carport on the abutting property to the north. The shallow pitch of the carport roof corresponds to the flat roof of the contributing structure.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

2. Composition of Principal Facade s.

a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

Staff's discussion: No windows are proposed for the structure. The bays of the building would face west, toward the back of the primary structure, toward 600 East, and are regularly spaced. One garage door is proposed for the enclosed storage area; no details for this door are shown on the drawings, but the Historic Landmark Commission has approved metal or wood doors on similar accessory buildings in the historic districts. The proposed carport is 71 feet away from the house, and relates more to the adjacent carport on the neighboring property and the service areas of the adjoining properties. With this in mind, the Staff finds that the proposed CMU (concrete masonry unit) block is far away from the contributing building so that it does not interfere with its historic character. Staff does not have an issue with the proposed standing seam metal roof, because the carport is an accessory structure, barely visible from the street, and will not be readily seen from other vantage points on thoroughfares traversed by the public.

Staff's finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.

3. Relationship to Street.

a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;

d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The proposed building is located on the interior of the block, and is set back from the street. The proposed building meets this standard.

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: No subdivision is proposed; thus this standard does not apply.

Ms. Giraud stated that Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City address accessory buildings in Section 9 and Section 12. One guideline in Section 9 addresses preserving existing historic accessory buildings where feasible, and another requires garages to be detached structures in most cases. The third deals with the details of construction a new garage.

9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure. In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for the soffits. In the case of a two-car garage, two single doors are preferable and present a less blank look to the street; however, double doors are allowed.

The standards in Section 12 address the location and design of parking areas. 12.10 Large parking areas, especially those for commercial and multi-family uses, shall not be visually obtrusive. Locate parking areas to the rear of the property, when physical conditions permit. An alley should serve as the primary access to parking when physical conditions permit. Parking should not be located in the front yard, except in the driveway, if it exists.

12.11 Avoid large expanses of parking. Divide large parking lots with planting areas. Large parking areas are those with more than five cars.

12.12 Screen parking areas from view of the street. Automobile headlight illumination from parking areas shall be screened for adjacent lots and the street. Fences, walls, and plantings, or a combination of these, should be used to screen parking.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed building meets applicable design guidelines.

Ms. Giraud offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application, based upon Staff's findings that the project substantially complies with the applicable standards of the ordinance and adopted design guidelines, and subject to the following conditions: 1) This approval is for design only. All other City requirements must be met prior to obtaining a building permit; and 2) If any substantial changes are required as a result of other City requirements, Staff shall refer the proposal back to the full Commission for final review."

Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.

Mr. Ashdown said that it looked like the new proposal would be the same dimension as the existing structure.

Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired if the new proposal would create a change of use because there would be a garage with an overhead door at the end. Ms. Giraud said that the proposed carport would have five bays, but the one that would be used for storage would have an overhead door. She added that there would not be a change of use.

Ms. Mickelsen mentioned that the proposed carport did not appear to have a wall on the north side. There was a short discussion regarding the plans. Since it was difficult to read the plans, Ms. Giraud suggested conferring with the applicant to clarify the details on the plans.

Upon hearing no questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Matthew Driggs, the applicant, was present. Mr. Driggs talked briefly about the project.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic

Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by asking if there would be a north wall on the proposed carport. Mr. Driggs said that there would not be a north wall. There was a short discussion as the plans were studied once more. Mr. Ashdown said that there were two posts dividing it in thirds. Ms. Mickelsen said there is nothing on the end.

• Mr. Parvaz inquired since there is no supporting wall on the north side edge, would the roof be cantilevered by posts. Mr. Driggs said that was how he understood it. He added that there is a part that hangs over without a post and that would represent one parking stall.

• Ms. Rowland said that the proposal would still have to go through a permit process where it would be reviewed and calculated whether or not the building would support that design. Ms. Giraud said that the Building and Housing Division would also review the project.

• Ms. Mickelsen said that it looked like there is a very slight slope to the roof. Ms. Giraud said that there would be as slight sloping to the roof.

• Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the proposed material would match the wall behind the alley. Mr. Driggs indicated that the wall was either brick or cinderblock but it was his intention that the exterior material would be more consistent with the bricks on the building. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the building was painted. Mr. Driggs said that it was painted brick. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that it was written on the plans that a split faced CMU and a standing seam metal roof were the proposed materials. Mr. Driggs said the proposal would be constructed as drawn and written on the plans.

Executive Session.

There was no further discussion.

Motion:

Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to approve Case No. 011-04 which was a request to construct a four-car carport and storage unit in the rear yard of the property at 331 South 600 East, as submitted, based on Staff's findings of fact that the project substantially complies with the applicable standards of the ordinance and adopted design guidelines, and subject to the conditions of this approval. The approval is for design only and all other City requirements must be met prior to obtaining a building permit. Further if any substantial changes are required as a result of other City requirements, Staff shall refer the proposal back to the full Commission for final review. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 012-04. at 531 East 400 South. by Stations-West-Downtown (c/o Phillips-Edison & Co.) requesting approval to construct a Walgreens and commercial pad site on the site of the former Dee's Restaurant and an office building. The property is located in the Central City Historic District.

Ms. Coffey said that Mr. Dansie was on vacation so she 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. Coffey gave an overview of the project:

The applicant is requesting approval from the Historic Landmark Commission to construct a new Walgreens Pharmacy at 531 East 400 South and a pad site building on the north east corner of 500 East and 400 South. The property is located in the Central City Historic District and is zoned Corridor Commercial (CC), the purpose which is to "provide an environment for efficient and attractive automobile oriented commercial development along arterial and major collector streets." (SLC Code 21A.26.050(A)).

Three non-contributing buildings have previously been approved for demolition on this site. The former West One Building, located on the northeast corner or 500 East and 400 South (505 East 400 South) was approved for demolition by the Historic Landmark Commission on November 4, 1992. The Dee's building (515 East 400 South) and the office building (525 East 400 South) were administratively approved for demolition on June 15, 2004. As required in Section 21A.10.020(F) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, a request for demolition of a non-contributing building does not have to be heard before the full Commission. The request may be administratively approved provided the Historic Landmark Commission members and the property owners within an 85-foot radius of the subject building are notified and given two weeks to respond if opposed to the demolition. Staff sent out a letter on May 25, 2004; no objections were raised to the demolition and a demolition permit was issued.

The applicants propose to construct a Walgreens Pharmacy and a pad site. The new Walgreens will occupy the site formerly occupied by the office building and the former Dee's eastern parking lot. The pad site will be in the location of the former West One Bank/western parking lot.

Both buildings are one-story construction. The Walgreens has a brick and stone veneer. Details of the pad site will become available upon the retention of a tenant.

The proposal has been reviewed by the Development Review Team (DRT) on January 7 and June 7, 2004. A zoning review was also performed on June 11, 2004. The DRT and zoning review indicated that, with minor modifications, the proposal complies with the requirements of the CC zone. Once the HLC has approved the projects, no other special approvals would be required and the building permit would be issued "over the counter”.

Ms. Coffey referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance:

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council, and is in the best interest of the city.

1. Scale and Form.

a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and

d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.

Staff's discussion: The height and width, proportion of the principal Facades, roof shape and the scale of the Walgreens' structure are compatible with surrounding commercial development along 400 South, which consists of a series of one-story buildings, facing the street, of varying setbacks and widths. All of the commercial buildings along 400 South, within the historic district, have flat roofs. The pad location at the corner of 400 South and 500 East reintroduces the corner element that has been lost. Final details of the architecture of the pad building will be available after the acquisition of the final tenant.

Staff's finding of fact: The height, width, proportion of the principal fa(jades, roof shape and the scale of the structure are visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape in this portion of the Central City Historic District.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

Staff's discussion: The proposed openings of Walgreens consist of glass/aluminum storefront at the main entrance to the building on the southwest corner of the structure. The windows on the south fa(jade are clear glass panels. They are not the full height of the building. The ratio of glass to other material is less than that on other commercial developments in the areas, such as the Fourth South Market, but it exceeds the ratio of glass to wall on other neighboring buildings, such as Smiths Marketplace (until recently Fred Meyer). Brick veneer and manufactured limestone are the primary finish materials of the building. The relationship of materials is comparable to other buildings that the HLC has approved in the 400 South area.

Staff's finding of fact: The relationship of materials to the surrounding structures and streetscape is acceptable.

3. Relationship to Street.

a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;

d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.

Staff's discussion: The commercial structures along 400 South vary in their rhythm of spacing in relationship to each other and the street. Generally, they consist of strip malls and large box retail stores with pad sites close to the street. The Commission has, in its review of cases along 400 South, tried to maintain a comparatively strong street presence of new buildings in the historic district (examples include: the pad sites at the Fourth South Market, Starbucks, Chilies and The Men's Wearhouse). Several options for the layout of this site were discussed by staff with the developer. The final proposal, with a pad site anchoring the corner, attempts to balance the needs of the tenant with the desire for a strong street wall. Other developments along 400 South are similar with their main anchor stores set back from the street, with the pads near the sidewalk. Other proposed structures on the site include a pylon sign near the 400 South parking entry.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed development is visually compatible with the surrounding structures in terms of walls of continuity, rhythm of spacing and structures facing the street, directions expression of principal elevation and pedestrian improvements.

Staff's discussion: This standard does not apply; the proposal does not involve and subdivision of lots. The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City are also applicable in this case.

Applicable standards in this case include:

Central City Commercial Area features.

The design goals for these areas is to enhance the pedestrian environment and to minimize negative visual impacts as seen from the historic residential portions of the district. It is not the intent to create an "historical" image for buildings in these areas, but simply to apply principles of good urban design that will enhance the visual quality while accepting the 'contemporary" character that exists here.

Staff's discussion: The proposed buildings all face 400 South, which is the commercial street. The front door to both buildings is oriented to the street and has access to the sidewalk. The adjacent properties to the north include a day spa and an apartment building (under construction). The lower level of the apartment building contains paring and is screened from Walgreens by a fence. The upper apartments will not have their view impacted by the Walgreens, which is lower in scale and elevation.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed development enhances the pedestrian environment and does not negatively affect the adjacent residential portions of the historic district.

Central City Commercial Area Standards.

13.31 Minimize the visual impacts of automobiles as seen from the sidewalk by pedestrians: Provide landscaped buffer areas to screen and separate the sidewalk from parking and drive lanes within individual commercial sites.

13.32 Screen service areas from the residential portions of the historic district. Use fences, walls and planting materials to screen service areas. When feasible, locate service area away from residential portions of the historic district.

13.33 Minimize the visual impact of signs. This is particularly important as seen from within the residential portions of the historic district. Smaller signs are preferred. Monument signs and low pole mounted signs are appropriate.

13.34 Shield all site lighting such that it does not spill over into the residential portions of the historic district.

Staffs discussion: Parking is located away from residential areas, and the property line adjacent to residential areas is proposed to have a 7-foot landscaped buffer to shield the Walgreens store and drive through lane from residential properties. The parking is separated from the sidewalk by a 15-foot landscaped setback. The landscaped setback adjacent to the pad building would be available for outdoor dining. Signage for the site will be located on the face of the building (facing away from residential areas}. A pylon sign will also be located adjacent to the main entry on 400 South.

Staffs finding of fact: The proposed development generally meets the design standards.

Ms. Coffey offered the following Staff’s recommendation: "Staff recommends the Historic Landmark Commission approve this application. The Historic Landmark Commission may elect to send this application, for further refinement of details, including signage, to the Architectural Committee or Staff for approval."

Ms. Coffey displayed a sample board of the proposed materials.

Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for Staff regarding the findings of fact.

Mr. Parvaz inquired further about the required bond for landscaping. Ms. Coffey said that the bond would be required before a permit is issued. Ms. Rowland asked if there is a certain length of time before landscaping would be required. Ms. Coffey said that if the applicants do not apply for a building permit within a one year time period, then landscaping would have to be installed.

Mr. Ashdown wondered if that regulation had changed because when the Bill and Nada's properties were demolished, the time period and a bond being issued were not a consideration in that process. He added that the City did not require a landscaping bond and now "we are left with an empty lot with nothing on that corner''. Ms. Giraud said that the process was different. She said that the Bill and Nada's properties should be investigated because they have been for sale for a long time. Ms. Giraud believed that the City should explore to see if the owners are in violation of any general enforcement issues. Ms. Coffey said that the bond would ensure that the landscaping would be installed. Mr. Ashdown said that he had a difficult time defining density and streetscape along 400 South and what is an appropriate design for a building. Ms. Coffey said that is an important issue, but the project did meet the criteria of the Historic Landmark Commission to provide a strong streetscape along there.

There was much discussion regarding the Transit Oriented Development (TOO) Zoning Ordinance and the Walkable Communities Ordinance. Ms. Coffey said that the zoning ordinances have not been passed by the City Council but that they will have an effect on any new construction on 400 South.

Mr. Parvaz talked about another case where the buildings had to be brought out to the sidewalk and inquired about justifying the issue of pushing the buildings back and putting parking in front.

Mr. Ashdown said that he felt very uncomfortable that the Historic Landmark Commission was being used for this purpose. Although he supported that concept, Mr. Ashdown expressed concern that the Historic Landmark Commission's decision might be overturned if the decision was based on that consideration.

Mr. Parvaz stated that continuity and relationship should be retained because originally the buildings were on the street and not pushed back. Mr. Ashdown said that the proposed project on the Bill and Nada's property had to be pushed up against the street and the continuity of the district has not come about. Ms. Mickelsen said that the owners were supposed to have put a building there.

Ms. Rowland said that parking was not allowed in front of the Emigration Court complex on 500 East. She said that she believed the Historic Landmark Commission has been consistent with the recent new construction, which has been approved. This discussion continued.

Ms. Coffey explained that several different site plans accompanied the staff report and the reasons why none of them worked were included. She added that the main issue was accessing the drive-through and the limited access off 400 South. When asked, Ms. Coffey said that there was some limitation of drive-throughs in the TOD ordinance. She stated that there were issues if automobile-related services should be allowed in that zone, such as gas stations, but the community was concerned that if they were pushed off 400 South, they would filter in throughout the neighborhood. She said that pad sites as part of the development was a compromise.

Ms. Mickelsen inquired how close would the proposed pad site be built from the sidewalk. Ms. Coffey said about six feet.

Mr. Parvaz noted that the new Walgreens in Sugar House was built close to the street on the 900 East side. Ms. Giraud said that the lot was a totally different configuration. Ms. Coffey suggested talking about that to the applicant.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if the size of the pad site was set or could it be larger if the tenant wanted to expand the size. Ms. Coffey said that it probably would come down to the required parking. Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission should be reviewing both the site plan and building design.

A discussion took place regarding other projects in the area.

Upon hearing no questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.

Applicants, Mr. Roy Williams and Mr. Bob Sherry, both with the Phillips Edison and Company, representing Walgreens, were present. The applicants used a briefing board to further describe the project. Mr. Williams said that Phillips Edison and Company is the developer for Walgreens. He explained the following: Phillips Edison and Company is the parent company of Stations West Downtown LLC. Those are the entities developing the Walgreens store. Stations West Downtown LLC was created specifically for this development. Phillips Edison and Company owns and manages retail properties across the United States. Some of those properties are Walgreens stores.

Mr. Williams said that the Dee's property was acquired on March 1, 2004. He said that they specifically acquired the Dee's property for the development of Walgreens. He mentioned that they had an executed lease with Walgreens for this location. Mr. Williams said that this meeting was a culmination of several meetings with the DRT (Design Review Team) and with Planning Staff.

Mr. Williams said that he wanted to express his thanks to everyone who assisted them throughout this approval process. He said that he was confident that the residents, as well as visitors would be pleased with this retail development. Mr. Williams believed it would enhance the 400 South corridor.

Mr. Williams stated that he wanted to address the following points of interest: The former vacant office building that was on the Dee's property was set back from the right-of-way about 180 feet. The proposed Walgreens building would reduce the parking in front significantly. The development only has an 86-foot setback. In terms of continuity along the street, there are anchor tenants all along 400 South, such as Wild Oats, Staples, and now the Smith's Marketplace. Each of those represent the anchor tenant on that particular parcel. Anchor tenants are sometimes classified at a certain square footage. Typically, anything over 10, 000 square feet would be classified as an anchor tenant. The anchor tenant requires adequate parking in front of the store. The out parcel development with smaller buildings of 1, 200 to 1, 500 square feet have been buffered somewhat on 400 South. The pad site building in the proposed development would bring the building to the street.

Mr. Williams said the pad site was not the applicant's preference, but have agreed to do that. He said that the pad site would take away the parking from Walgreens and it will impact the economics of the development. Mr. Williams pointed out that Walgreens would come back to them and request a rent reduction from the agreement. He noted that they were willing to compromise with Staff and tried to be in alignment with the desires of the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission; they agreed to put a building on the pad site on the corner.

Mr. Williams wanted to ensure the Historic Landmark Commission that they were in the process of obtaining a building permit. He added that they bought the land, signed the lease agreement with Walgreens, and were obligated to construct the building. Mr. Williams said that the lot would not be abandoned. He concluded by saying that they were very anxious to get the development underway.

Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by inquiring if the materials that were presented to the Commission on the sample board were standard for all Walgreens, or were the materials tailored somewhat for this location. Mr. Williams said that about every other year there are revisions to the Walgreens criteria. He said that sometimes it has to do with the size of the building and other times it has to do with materials or the combination of materials that are used particularly on the exterior of the building. Mr. Williams pointed out that the proposed structure is the 2004 prototype building that would incorporate the limestone, brick, the aluminum mullions around the windows, the standing seam metal awnings, and the split faced decorative block. Mr. Ashdown indicated that these proposed materials would be very different than the Walgreens that was constructed in Sugar House. Mr. Williams said that they did not develop the Sugar House property. Mr. Ashdown added that the building is an all brick structure. Mr. Sperry stated that last year Walgreens went through a major overhaul of their look. He said that limestone was added which they had not done before. Mr. Sperry indicated that the Sugar House building is a more traditional style with a little limestone. Mr. Sperry noted that the terra cotta color and the green awnings were standard. He believed that adding more limestone detailing improved the look of the building.

• Ms. Rowland asked if one would be able to see through the windows. Mr. Sperry said that the windows would be clear and one would be able to see through the building. Mr. Sperry added that the windows would be about the same height as the Sugar House building. Mr. Williams also said that there would be some windows on the 400 South elevation for the pedestrian traffic.

• Mr. Parvaz asked what the hours of operation would be for Walgreens. Mr. Williams said that the proposed retail entity would be a 24-hour store. Mr. Sperry said that he believed they had done a good job of addressing the 400 South elevation. He pointed out that the building would be 85 feet off the sidewalk, have a dedicated access to the front door, well lit, and very pedestrian friendly. Mr. Sperry also noted the bike rack that would be adjacent to the sidewalk. He indicated that there would be more landscaping than any other project in the area. Mr. Parvaz observed that the bond would require that the landscaping be done. Mr. Sperry said that they had no objection to the bond requirement. He reiterated that they fully intend to build a building there, but they would need to find a tenant first to occupy the pad site so that building would be constructed to the tenant's specifications.

• Mr. Wheelwright explored the applicant's conjecture that Walgreens would request a reduction in rent. Mr. Williams said that the Walgreens development would be based on total development costs, which would include the land. He pointed out that the cost was presented to Walgreens and a rent factor was determined, which is a percentage of the total development costs. Mr. Williams explained that they would designate a piece of the land, the associated parking, and landscaping to another retailer. He indicated that Walgreens would want to proportionately discount the total development cost, and then the rent obviously would be lowered. Mr. Wheelwright said that the new tenant on the corner would help offset that cost. Mr. Williams agreed that it would help. Mr. Williams said that Walgreens is probably the best credit tenant a developer could have, and therefore the return for the developer would be more significant than the smaller tenant on the corner with only a 2, 000 square feet operating space. Mr. Sperry said that they formed a contract with Walgreens long before the property was acquired. He noted that they had no idea that the property was in an historic district. Mr. Sperry pointed out that they were new to Salt Lake City. He said that they realized they had made a mistake by not doing all the necessary research. Mr. Sperry stated that the purchase price of the property and the rent was structured back in February and they are now in a "catch up" mode. He disclosed the fact that Walgreens will be requesting a lease amendment. Mr. Sperry stated that they had invested over $100, 000 in the drawings and they do not intend to throw that away. He noted that they wanted to get started with construction in August of this year.

• Ms. Mickelsen inquired if there was any leeway in the design of the proposed building. Mr. Sperry said that there has been very little discussion about the architecture and the design of the proposed building. Ms. Mickelsen stated that she knew that the 400 South corridor had little resemblance of an historic district but she did not want to see another store constructed that would look like every other store in that particular chain. She pointed out that when Fred Meyer was constructed, the owners tailored the design to fit into the neighborhood. Ms. Mickelsen said that it would be nice to have something special for this neighborhood, as an architectural statement, that could still meet Walgreens' specifications. Mr. Williams said that this was discussed with Staff, and in their opinion, which Staff supported, that the proposed materials that are used on a typical Walgreens' building would be very compatible and in harmony with the continuity of the streetscape within the historic district on 400 South. He noted that Staff did not want a building that replicated an historic building. Ms. Giraud said that the idea for a prototype for commercial buildings dates back to the Roman era. She likened the prototype scheme to the little White Castle hamburger stands in 1925, which are now treasured buildings. Ms. Giraud stated that the context of the 400 South corridor does not require something really unique and spectacular like a "Seven-Eleven" would in Beacon Hill for instance. Mr. Fitzsimmons pointed out that if the White Castles had been subject to a design review, they probably would not have been built. Ms. Giraud said that they were replicas of historic castles so they might now have been allowed.

• Ms. White inquired further into the parking issues and the space needed for a drive through. Mr. Sperry said that they tried and tried to configure it differently. He pointed out that the pharmacy would be on the back right side, and that was the only way they could configure the building on that odd-shaped lot. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that one would have to drive around the back to get to the drive-through window. Mr. Sperry said that better than half of the traffic is drive-through traffic. There was an extensive discussion regarding automobile traffic versus the pedestrian traffic.

• Ms. Rowland inquired if Walgreens had a higher minimum-parking requirement. Mr. Sperry said that the code is three per 1, 000 square feet and that would include the pad site building. He added that Walgreens preferred a higher density for their parking requirement. Ms. Rowland inquired about the easement on the property and if it would affect the neighbor's property. Mr. Sperry said that it would not. Ms. Coffey said that the parking for the building next door was on the other side. Ms. Rowland mentioned that she believed that there was going to be a pedestrian access to 400 South from the Emigration Court development. Mr. Sperry said that they initiated a discussion with the developers for Emigration Court. He added that although the two properties were at a different grade level, he believed there would be an access through their property.

Executive Session.

The members of the Commission confronted the issues at hand by continuing the discussion on the proposed project.

Mr. Ashdown believed that the applicants were making their best effort in regards to the proposed materials.

Mr. Parvaz felt like the developers along 400 South were able to use any materials they wanted and have their desired setbacks as long as a pad site is constructed on the corner. He expressed his concern about the direction the Historic Landmark Commission was going. Ms. Giraud said that Staff tried to mitigate that, especially where there was more land that would be involved.

Ms. Coffey pointed out some of the changes if the TOO and Walkable Communities ordinances were in place. She said that the TOO ordinance does not focus on the architectural standpoint; it encourages higher density with retail on the first floor with clear glass windows and residential above.

Ms. Rowland found it very frustrating when a developer does not know when a property is in an historic district. She also talked about changing the boundaries of the historic district not to include 400 South, which has been discussed before.

Mr. Parvaz asked if the Commission should allow a metal roof. Ms. Giraud said that it would be awnings, which are not a major element. Others disagreed and thought the awnings would be a major design element. Mr. Parvaz believed that the Commission should be consistent.

Mr. Ashdown thought that 400 South was a real "mish mash" of designs, materials, and rooftops and that there was no consistency on that corridor.

Ms. White read the following from the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City regarding the Central City Commercial area features, 'The design goals for these areas is to enhance the pedestrian environment and to minimize negative visual impacts as seen from the historic residence portions of the district. It is not the intent to create a 'historical' image for buildings in these areas, but simply to apply principles of good urban design that will enhance the visual quality while accepting the 'contemporary' character that exists here." She agreed with Mr. Ashdown. She said that if someone needed a prescription in the middle of the night for a sick child or elderly person, they would not give the design or the materials any consideration; they would only think of the convenience. However, Ms. White stated that she did not like the design of the proposed building and the entire street is a ' conglomeration".

Ms. Mickelsen said that she had a problem with the "cookie cutter" approach with regards to architecture and she believed that at some point it would have to be stopped. Mr. Ashdown said that he thought the forthcoming ordinance was a much better "stop" than if it came from the Historic Landmark Commission trying "steer 400 South in the right direction". The discussion continued.

Motion:

Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 012-04 that the request by Stations-West-Down in care of Phillips Edison and Company to construct a Walgreens and commercial pad site on the site of the former Dee's Restaurant and an office building at 531 East 400 South, be approved. The Historic Landmark Commission accepts the site layout with the provision that a bond will be purchased for the intended building on the corner of the plan due to the lack of having a tenant, and that if the bond fails the corner will be landscaped appropriately. Staff will need to review the proposed landscaping with no parking on that corner. Further, the Historic Landmark Commission accepts the overall design and materials, keeping in mind that the property is in a portion of the Central City Historic District, which varies in commercial design and lacks historical character. This design for Walgreens is compatible and fits in with other corporate designs along 400 South. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was opposed and Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS Painted signs on buildings:

Mr. Ashdown said that he was concerned about protection for the painted signs on buildings around town. Ms. Giraud said that the only protection the signs would have if the building was designated as a Landmark Site. This discussion continued.

Liquid siding:

Ms. Mickelsen suggested having the subject of "liquid siding" as a discussion issue on a future agenda because a house in her neighborhood is having liquid siding installed. Ms. Mickelsen would like to have a clarification if liquid siding would be considered paint or a material.

Adjournment of the meeting.

Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parvaz moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. White seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 7:35P.M.