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 Pete Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, David Fitzsimmons, Janice Lew, Cheri Coffey, Joel Paterson, Elizabeth Giraud, Sarah Carroll, Neil Olsen and Lex Traughber
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Paula Carl, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Acting Chairperson; Oktai Parvaz, and David Fitzsimmons. Lee White and Soren Simonsen were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Sarah Carroll, Associate Planner; Janice Lew, Associate Planner; Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner; Neil Olsen, Principal Planner; Lex Traughber, Principal Planner; Louise Harris, Senior Secretary and Shirley Jensen Senior Secretary.
Vicki Mickelsen, Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:03P.M. She then asked everyone to turn off all pagers and telephones or at least make them silent so as not to interrupt deliberations. She stated the meeting would proceed with the items in the order in which they appear on the agenda. She hoped that everyone not on the field trip was able to see the properties.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
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, she closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Joel Paterson, the new Planning Programs Supervisor introduced himself and Louise Harris, as the new Secretary for the Historic Landmark Commission. The Chairperson then welcomed her and expressed a very large thank you to Shirley on behalf of the entire Commission for her wonderful work throughout the years and being such a tremendous support to the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Pete Ashdown moved to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2005 meeting. Noreen Heid seconded the motion. The motion passed with one abstention by Dave Fitzsimmons.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
CASE NO. 008-05, (TABLED MAY 4, 2005} at 304 E. First Avenue, by Bruce Markosian, requesting approval to replace an existing garage with a new single-car garage using honed concrete block as the building materials. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District and the case is continued from the May 4th meeting. Ms. Mickelsen thanked the staff for the new and additional information which they requested.
Ms. Sarah Carroll indicated that she had prepared a memo to the Commission regarding the case and documentation of the concrete block. She then passed to each member a color copy of the photo survey of concrete block accessory structures.
MEMO TO THE COMMISSION OVERVIEW
This item is continued from the May 4, 2005 meeting. Bruce Markosian, owner of the dwelling located at 304 East First Avenue, is requesting approval to replace an existing garage on his property. The subject property is on a corner lot abutting property owned by First Presbyterian Church. The site proposed for the garage is barely visible from C Street. It is readily visible from First Avenue because of the void in the streetscape caused by the proximity of the abutting parking lot and day care playground. Mr. Markosian has proposed honed concrete block as the building material for the new structure. Staff referred this application for a full Commission review because the proposed building material is not listed in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts, and staff determined that concrete block is not a compatible building material for an accessory structure on a site easily seen from the street. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District, and is zoned RMF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District.
BACKGROUND
In the staff report dated May 4, 2005 staff reviewed the Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Design Guidelines for the Avenues Historic District and made findings for each Standard. Staff found that the application met the standards for Scale and Form and Relationship to Street, but found that the application did not completely meet the standards for Composition of Principal Facades and made the finding that concrete block is not a material that is characteristic of the Avenues Historic District and would compete with the materials used on the principal structure.
The Historic Landmark Commission tabled this case on May 4, 2005 and asked that staff do more extensive research regarding the proposed building material, concrete block. The Commission asked that staff answer the two following questions:
• Are there other concrete block structures in the Avenues Historic District?
• Have other concrete block or materials cases been heard by the Commission and what was the decision?
According to historic directories, concrete block was being advertised in Utah in the early 1900's as seen on page 42 of the 1914-15 Utah State Gazetteer and Business Directory (refer to add for John H. Batt & Sons). The Gazetteer also lists three Cement Block manufacturer's, located in Brigham City, Green River and Provo and lists cement manufacturer's in Castle Dale, Mammoth, Price, Salt Lake City and Smithfield. (Exhibit 2)
Due to the statement in the Design Standards, that oversized brick is inappropriate, if the HLC decides to approve the use of the proposed material, reasonable justification for this case should be stated by the Commission. If the material is approved it should be case specific and should not set a precedence since the use of this material is in opposition to the design guidelines.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the staff or if the Commissioners wanted to speak with the applicant again. The applicant was asked to come forward to add anything further if he had more information.
• Mr. Markosian indicated that the information presented by staff was very thorough and much more than he had imagined. His home was built in 1896 and there is an historical precedence for concrete block. Many of the garages are small shack-like buildings. Some of the garages in the Avenues are cute little cottages that go with the original structure and he doesn't think there is much precedence in the Avenue's for that kind of accessory building. He asked that this be approved as it is designed and that it would be a simple straight forward single car garage with a lean to on one side that would fit well in the neighborhood. The blocks are 16” long x 8” tall, a standard concrete block. The finish is a honed surface, a very smooth polish with a color block that ties in with the area. The applicant prefers the salmon colored block because it matches the color of his house and the Presbyterian Church better than the other colors.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address this case. Seeing none the Chair closed the public hearing to go into the Executive Session and to entertain a motion.
• Mr. Parvaz was concerned with changing the rules. The guidelines that are used were published in 1999 and nowhere does it encourage the major building materials to be used to be CMU or oversized brick. This building will be readily visible. He does not believe that the committee should set a precedence He stated the use of this material goes against the adopted guidelines. He thought the guidelines should be amended or the case should be denied.
• Mr. Ashdown indicated they are just guidelines, not rules and are usually revised every once in a while. He stated new materials should be looked at as to whether or not they are appropriate. He also stated that the cinder blocks the applicant is proposing are better looking than what they used to be.
• Mr. Parvaz indicated he is not against cinder block but it does not meet the intent of the guidelines.
• After much discussion, Ms. Mickelsen, acting chairperson, asked if they are making a decision as to whether or not concrete block is appropriate for the Avenues Historic District. She then asked staff to explain how the guidelines are amended.
• Ms. Giraud indicated they haven't amended the guidelines which were originally prepared by a consultant. The guidelines were adopted by the City Council so they basically have the same standing as the ordinance.
Motion:
Mr. Scott Christensen moved that in Case 008-05 the Commission approve the demolition of the existing wood garage on site and approve construction of a new garage as specified by the drawings in their staff report including approval for the building to be constructed of a CMU (concrete masonry unit) material described by the applicant. In this instance, the use of CMU is appropriate because this structure is appropriately designed as far as size, massing and architectural features, the building is an accessory structure and not a primary residential building, the material is cement block and that those blocks are not excessive in size and because as indicated in the memo to the Commission dated June 1, 2005 there are at least 11 structures in this part of the Avenues Historic District which are accessory structures and are constructed of a similar material and the garage is not immediately visible from the street. Mr. Pete Ashdown seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Christensen, Noreen Heid and Mr. Fitzsimmons voted “Aye”. Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Ms. Mickelsen, Acting Chairperson did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 012-05. at 26 North Q Street. by Michael McGinley. requesting to add three (3) shed roof dormers on the residence located in the Avenues Historic District.
Lex Traughber presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation. A copy of the Staff Report is filed with the minutes.
• Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for Staff.
• Mr. Christensen ask whether the new roof would be able to maintain the original roof bearing, did that mean there wouldn't be any sections standing out more than they do already.
• Mr. Traughber indicated that the depth of the eaves would remain the same. The height of the walls aren't changing. He stated the applicant wants to change the pitch of the roof to get more height for usable space in the upper floor.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the materials would be identical to what they are now. Mr. Traughber indicated that they propose to match the existing materials to give the appearance of what is presently there now. They will use stucco on the existing gable end so it doesn't have a timbering look. The three windows, the half timber and the stucco will remain the same.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
• Ken Ng and Naima Nawabi, MJSA Architects, presented pictures and drawings of the design. Mr. Ng indicated that the existing roof has damage due to the age of the home. One of the current problems is the bowing on both sides of the house several inches caused by the failure of the roof. The second is that the lot is noncomplying as to lot size. The lot is 3,650 square feet; less than the minimum lot size of the R-1/5,000 zoning district of 5,000 square feet. The issue is how to add to the structure in the Historic District where the lot is so small. Because the roof is failing and the owners need to reconstruct it, they decided to expand the living area at the same time. They want to keep everything as original as they possibly can.
All details will remain consistent. The only part that will be modified is the area above the window which will be larger because of the change in the roof pitch. The roof height will not change but they will put in a 2X10 and 2x12 structure to raise the roof a little. The project will include adding a dormer on the north side of the house to accommodate an interior staircase. The roof will extend over the existing rear addition. The T1-11 siding will be replaced with shingle siding which is more compatible with the historic building material of the house. The dormers will be sided with shingles as well.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked whether the upstairs windows will be replaced. The applicant stated that the upstairs windows will be wood casement. The downstairs will remain.
• Mr. Christensen asked whether this proposal includes replacing the windows on the main floor of the house.
• The applicant replied that some of them have damage but not all of them do and they will repair the windows if possible. If not they will replace them with windows very similar to what was original. The new windows will meet the Historic District Design Guidelines for Residential Districts.
• Mr. Christensen asked whether the new stucco on the front gable would be a similar color to that which is existing.
• The applicant stated that they are planning to match the color of the existing stucco. Ms. Mickelsen asked whether there were any further questions. Ms. Mickelson asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak. Seeing none, Ms. Mickelsen closed the public hearing. The Commission moved into Executive Session.
Motion
Ms. Carl moved to approved Case 012-05, as presented. based on the findings of fact listed in the Staff Report with final approval of the window design delegated to the Planning Staff. Mr. Christensen seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz and Mr. Fitzsimmons all voted “Aye”. Ms. Mickelsen, Acting Chairperson did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Mickelsen declared a small break at 5:00
Ms. Mickelsen called the meeting back to order at 5:02:
Case 013-05 at 75 North H Street. by Everwood Utah. Inc. requesting approval to replace an existing ·front porch on the house. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Janice Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and staff's recommendation. A copy of the staff report was filed with the minutes. Ms. Lew stated that based on the Findings and Facts in the staff report, staff does not support the proposed design for the replacement porch and entry. Staff found that the new porch failed to convey the visual appearance including function and decorative features such as orientation, columns, balustrade and type of building materials that are important in finding the overall style of character of this building. The new elements are historically inaccurate for the specific architectural style of this building and inconsistent with design standards.
• Mr. Parvaz noted that the front of the house appears to have a curvature to it and the front features are not all in the same plane. He asked if the front door sits back on another plane.
• Ms. Lew stated she did not know but the front elevation may have some sort of a bay.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if the reason the staff does not support this is because of the architecture. He said, in reading the letter from the home owner, foursquare lends itself to many styles and that the proposed classical features would fit with this architecture. He inquired whether there is something in the guidelines that this proposal violates.
• Ms. Lew stated that the applicant is not proposing classical columns. They are proposing brick. Ms. Lew stated that the proposed pony wall creates a false sense of style.
• Ms. Mickelsen noted that the hipped roof also creates a false sense of style.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons noted that a hipped roof structure exists to the south.
• Ms. Lew noted that those features are not consistent with the historic architecture of the subject structure.
• Mr. Christensen said it was such a handsome porch and noted that if the Commissioners did not know what was there before they might be inclined to approve it but it is so different from the original as seen in the historic photograph. He stated he believes the Commission has the obligation to require the applicant to restore the porch to the original.
• Ms. Lew noted that the applicant is also requesting to relocate the entry stairs to the porch.
• Ms. Carl asked whether the applicant was willing to restore the porch to the historic appearance.
• Mr. Christensen noted that the proposed porch has four columns as opposed to three, that were there historically.
• Ms. Mickelsen, said that the guidelines read: “If replacement is necessary, design the new element using adequate information about original features”. After much discussion between the Commission it was decided more information might be of some help.
• Ms. Lew indicated that they might need to talk with the applicant.
With no further questions for the staff, the applicants were invited to come forward.
• David Richardson, Architect for Everwood Utah and Susan Rugh, homeowner presented a handout of three colored pictures of the property. Mr. Richardson read a statement summarizing what they wanted to do to the porch in accordance with the adopted standards.
1. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness-
Property to be used for historic purpose. (No change)
2. Historic character shall be maintained and preserved. Their response is that the porch was probably built around 1978 and has little, if any, historic significance. The applicant wishes to locate the porch stairs from the north side of the front yard to the center of the property in order to create a buffer between the neighbor's driveway and the front steps.
3. Structures should be recognized as products of their time. The proposed design is similar to other foursquare porches of the period and represents the porch option that may have been available to the original owners when they selected the design of their home. Existing plastic, old brick and wrought iron elements will be replaced with more appropriate materials. The applicant does not wish to recreate the original wood porch and is proposing a compatible alternative.
4. No issues taken.
5. Preservation of distinctive features: The existing porch utilizes no distinctive or significant features, finishes or construction techniques in fact it is somewhat out of place or ugly. The existing facade of the foursquare home will remain unchanged. The historic wood windows would be restored and the front door returned to its original configuration. The location of the entry walk and steps will be relocated in response to the neighbor's driveway which is directly north of the entry of this house thus enhancing the classic progression of public to private spaces. The use of the semi-private and semi-public areas of the entry walk and stoop will be enhanced by this change.
6. Deterioration of architectural features shall be repaired. The original porch has long since deteriorated and been replaced several times. The proposed porch will not be the historical replica rather it will be unique to the owners. It will be historically appropriate in appearance mass materials and details. Note the standard number 6 suggest: “replacement of missing architectural features should be based, not must be based on pictorial evidence”. The proposed porch will be consistent with the form, massing materials and details of a period foursquare home as well as both adjacent homes.
7- Nothing
8. The proposed design is similar in detail from the original porch and is compatible with the size, scale, shape, color material in character of the existing home and neighborhood. This design will enhance the home and neighborhood.
9. This is the fourth porch on this house and probably won't be the last.
10. They will never use vinyl or aluminum or anything that is a prohibited building n1aterial.
• Mr. Richardson stated they are trying to duplicate the porch like the one at 79 North Laurel Street, which is another foursquare home. By using a pony wall they don't have to recreate a wooden railing that needs to be continually maintained. The brick pony wall is self maintained.
• Mr. Parvaz noted that by changing the location of the stairs, they will not be in line with the door. He said the porch is the main characteristic of the building and it seems misplaced. Responding to the issue of proximity to the driveway to the north, Mr. Parvaz stated that people would sit on the south side of the porch so as not to block access to the entry.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked to what degree they were trying to replicate the porch from elsewhere. The applicant answered that they are trying to replicate a porch from a house on Laurel Street that they have used for three years for filming the television show. They passed around photographs of the other house.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if the pony wall is part of the replication.
• Ms. Rough indicated she would rather not do the maintenance and the pony wall would give them more privacy.
• Mr. Christensen asked if there was a way to make the porch temporary.
• The applicant said they could do an alternate design which could be removed, but they would still want to center the stoop. They noted there were other homes on the block where the center stoop is offset from the entry.
After much discussion Mr. Richardson gave a closing remark indicating “that architecture should be of its time and place and while this house is, the porch is not. They could recreate what appears to be the home's porch of antiquity, but while its place remains, its time has long since passed. What they are proposing is a new porch that will be of its time and place. It would be built with materials that respect the home and neighborhood as
well. It will look like it belongs.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Seeing none, Ms. Mickelsen closed the Public Hearing and proceeded into the executive session of the meeting.
• Mr. Ashdown noted that the Commission passed by a similar home to what is being proposed on their fieldtrip. He noted the house near Virginia Street was a similar style with a pony wall and stoop offset from the entry.
• Mr. Christensen said he didn't know how they could get around Standard 5.3 of the guidelines. He did not believe the Commission could approve something not similar to the original. He stated the proposed porch may be found in the Avenues but it is not the porch that was on this structure.
• Mr. Ashdown noted that in the previous case, they allowed the applicant to add dormers to the roof of the house rather than require them to restore the roof to its original appearance. He stated the Commission does not require restoration, just compatibility.
• Ms. Mickelsen stated that the proposed features are not original to this house.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that the Foursquare architecture is adaptable to other styles and types of porches.
• Mr. Christensen stated if the entryway was not moved and the balustrade was installed on the second story, he could support the project.
• Ms. Carl asked if there was a precedence for the stucco base.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if the only reason there is a question about the proposal is because there is a photograph showing the original porch and the entry is off center.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked about the sidewalk. She felt the placement of the sidewalk, steps and door were very carefully thought out and are historically asymmetrical. She stated the proposed porch disrupts the rhythm of the fenestration of the house to have the entry going into a blank wall and it disrupts the rhythm of the sidewalk and driveway throughout the entire block.
• Mr. Christensen asked staff about points like 5.3 which states, “If the porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form and detail when feasible”. He inquired whether the Commission has been consistent in conforming to that standard in previous cases.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that there haven't been that many porch requests come to the Commission that she could recall. She did not believe she could adequately address that question.
• Mr. Christensen indicated that there was one in the lower Avenue's and the owner put a huge rounded awning entrance like you would see on a commercial structure.
• Ms. Giraud said that was the First Avenue and I Street case. She noted that in that particular case there were a lot of other issues that didn't pertain to this case. It was a proposed use of many elements from styles that did not resemble a foursquare type building. She also noted that the changes on that house were all done without permits.
Mr. Christensen asked whether the applicant is willing to put a temporary porch on the house, remove it at a later date and restore the porch to what was there originally.
• Mr. Tom Rugh, owner of the subject property and Director of Utah Art History and Mr. Tom Luce of Everwood were both given time to speak. They gave pros and cons of redoing the porch. Mr. Rugh indicated it was an old porch and had structural problems and would cost about $25,000 to repair and they just didn't have that kind of money. When Everwood came around and asked to use the home for filming, they indicated they would be willing to change the porch and to pay for it so it would be more inline with what they were using on Laurel Street. They were not aware of all the rules and regulations that the historic district included. He said that if they have to they can use an artificial facade with fake brick veneer in front of the balustrade so it will look like what is being proposed.
• Ms. Christensen asked how they were using the porch.
• Mr. Luce indicated it would be a background, people walking to the porch etc. The idea is to make the shots that show people walking house to house and talking to their neighbor’s porch to porch. That's what makes this type of neighborhood so attractive.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons noted that the historic features on the porch were gone. The applicant is proposing something compatible with the building.
• Mr. Ashdown asked whether the thought is to put up a permanent porch, similar to the original, with brick veneer along the balustrade to be taken down once filming is complete.
• Ms. Mickelson stated that for her, the entry was a big issue. She asked why the applicant couldn't still film at the Laurel Street location. The applicant stated they had been there for three years and the neighbors were asking them to leave.
• Mr. Luce stated they cannot change too far from the Laurel Street look because it will cause problems with the television audience.
• Ms. Mickelsen stated that the Commission has to deal with real world issues with long term impacts.
• Mr. Parvaz stated he did not want to set a precedence. He stated the regulations needed to be upheld.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons stated he agrees with Mr. Ashdown. They are not looking at replacing the original porch. However, he noted the symmetry of the proposed porch bothers him.
• Mr. Ashdown noted the proposal would be good for the Neighborhood and this building.
Motion
Mr. Ashdown made a motion that on case 013-05 at 75 North H Street, the porch be approved as proposed based on the fact that it is in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood, it uses materials that are in keeping with historic character of the neighborhood and that there are other porches of foursquare houses in the neighborhood of similar construction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzsimmons. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Heid, Mr. Fitzsimmons voted “Aye”. Ms. Mickelsen, Acting Chairperson did not vote. Mr. Christensen and Mr. Parvaz voted against. The motion passed.
A break was taken at 6:17 and Mr. Christensen indicated he had to leave the meeting.
The meeting was called back to order at 6:29 and a quorum was still present. Case No. 011-05 at 660 North 300 West in the Capitol Hill Historic District, by Bill Conner. for approval to remodel and make improvements to an existing vacant building.
Mr. Neil Olsen 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.
The property is zoned MU, Mixed Use, the purpose of which is to encourage the development of areas as a mix of compatible residential and commercial uses. The main structure was built in 1962, and was used as an industrial and manufacturing use. This is a non-contributing building in the Capitol Hill Historic district. There is a variety of uses along the 300 West corridor in this section of the neighborhood. The applicant is proposing to build a sound recording and editing studio in the renovated structure. A performing arts production facility is listed as a permitted use in the MU zoning district.
• Mr. Ashdown asked about the new roof on the south section. The new roof is going to arch and will be a standing seam metal room of silver color. The material of the exterior walls will be stucco. Mr. Ashdown noted that it appears there are no traces left of the original south structure.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that this is a non contributing structure in a portion of a mainly residential neighborhood that is along 300 West a major arterial corridor with a mixture of uses. Historically there are many manufacturing and industrial uses in this 300 West area. There are condos on the south but are unusual where as they are not individually owned by owners. They are owned by one person and then rented out legally.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if everything around this particular building is a residence.
• Ms. Giraud stated that was correct
• Ms. Coffey noted that Carman Refrigeration was located across the street.
• Mr. Olsen referred the Commission to Exhibit 2 showing the subject property in relation to other structures along 300 West and along 700 North.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that there have been several new creative production related uses that have developed in the area including a new photography studio on 300 West and the Utah Opera on 400 West. This trend has led to rehabilitation and new construction within the neighborhood.
• Mr. Parvaz noted that the applicant is relocating the main entrance from the west elevation to the south.
Ms. Giraud stated the applicants request to use a standing seam metal roof which was not usually allowed in the historic district. She noted that if the Commission allows the use of this material it should make a finding as to why it is appropriate in this case.
• Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicants to come forward.
• Mr. Bill Carr, owner of the studio indicated that they will be doing sound for radio and television. He introduced his brother, Aubrey Conner, the designer of the building and Andy Warr, the Architect. He indicated that the building will be much more pleasant looking and the design will stay congruent to the style. They and not changing the structure of the building at all except for the roof on the south addition. He noted several reasons for the changes including the fact that the air conditioning ducts are located under the slab on the south building which has collapsed making it is impossible to get to them. The south building has an eight foot ceiling height and there is no place to put the duct work. In addition, there are water problems in the ceiling. The applicant stated that they have thought about putting a simple angle shaped roof that would be a lot more economical as far as the wood truss goes but that that design would make the building look like a lean to. Adding a second story to the south building would change the building too drastically and so the applicants. have settled on the design of the curved roof structure. The curved roof structure would hide the duct work and lessen the effect of the incongruent heights of the two buildings. Currently the parapet wall is really low on the south side of the north building because the roof drains right off that onto the roof of the south building through a serious of gutters and downspouts that work. The other three sides of the north building are higher. The applicants proposed to raise the parapets on the three sides of the north building similar to the existing parapet and finishing it off so it is all square.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked what the exterior building material would be. Mr. Warr stated they will have a two toned stucco finish on the lower building with stainless steel bands between the two colors. The fascia will match the stainless steel bands. The larger building will be painted. The colors they are proposing to use will tie the two buildings together.
• Mr. Conner showed two colors that would complement each other and be all around the exterior of the building so that the two buildings are visually tied together.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired about the windows. Mr. Conner stated that the windows are proposed to be aluminum storefront windows with tinted glass. All the windows will match.
• Mr. Ashdown asked about the east and west sides of the building and wondered if they were going to leave the existing walls or build a whole new structure.
• Mr. Warr said the existing concrete block wall will stay as it is and they will add stucco on the outside of the south building. The handicapped access was the reason for moving the entrance on the south elevation closer to the parking lot. They would have to build a much larger ramp in the front in order for people to get in through the door. He asked the Commission to turn to sheet L1.5 in their packets as it shows a landscape plan. The black area is paving and they have taken out some of the existing paving up against the fence along the sidewalk on 700 North and also along the fence line that abuts the residential so they can put some planting in and soften the effect of the existing parking lot. Another reason for moving the entrance to the back is because 300 West has so much traffic, it is safer for the clients. Lighting placement has been added to the front and back and the existing lighting will be upgraded and will be placed low on the building rather than high because they don't want to shine the light into the apartments nearby.
• The applicant explained that there would be no joints in the stucco and that it would all be in the same plane.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were further questions of the applicant. Ms.
Mickelsen opened the public hearing. Seeing no one from the public wanting to speak, Ms. Mickelsen closed the public hearing and stated that the chair would entertain a motion or further discussion.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked about the signage.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that it is handled as a separate permit as a separate item and to ask the owners what their plans were.
• The applicants stated that the signage would be low-key and tasteful.
Motion
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved that in case 011-05, to approve the application in accordance with the staff's recommendation and note that the approval allowing the standing seam mental roof is based on the fact that it is an industrial structure, on the edge of the historic district, there are limited options for the roof structure and the building is non-contributing. He further stated that the approval is for design and historic district regulation compliance only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements. The motion was seconded by Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz and Mr. Fitzsimmons and Mr. Ashdown voted “Aye Ms. Mickelsen, Acting Chairperson did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 014-05 at 379 Fifth Avenue by Jamey and Hayley Garbett represented by Kenneth Wheadon. Architect. The applicants are requesting approval of a second-story and rear addition to the home. The home is in an S-1 zoning district which allows single family, two-family and twin homes as permitted uses.
Elizabeth Giraud, presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation. A copy of the staff report was filed with the minutes. The staff recommends approval of this project.
This home was built for Henrietta Woolley Simmons by her father as well as the home next door for her sister Rachel Emma. Both sisters were married to the same man, a polygamous, Joseph Marcellus Simmons.
• Mr. Ashdown asked about the logic behind the massing in terms of keeping with the original house. He stated the addition seemed enormous to him.
• Ms. Giraud indicated that the addition might seem larger but her rationale for recommending approval is the fact that the roof shape and form, and the pitch are similar to the original house. The shape of the building is setback from the main part of the house, so the main part of the house is still the prominent feature on the streetscape. The front of the home elevation is probably all you would see from the street because it is between houses that are fairly close together. It is only rising from the ridge line 6' 3”. The main part of the house is still original.
There were several items of discussion with staff referencing the existing house, setback and windows. Seeing no more questions to staff by the Commissioners, the Chair called the applicant forward to address the Commission.
• Ken Wheadon of Ken Wheadon Architects spoke. He indicated the intent of the project was to develop more space to accommodate the needs of the family. They want to keep and respect the front part of the structure. They always want to keep the additions in the back to keep the historic part of the house intact. The windows at the front part of the house are quite different from the west elevation and those have been changed and are not original to the house. The proposed addition will extend approximately 20 feet from the original house. The second story will extend over the top of the new addition.
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired as to where the addition will be, as shown on the east elevation drawings.
• Mr. Wheadon stated the new addition will be built just right of the first set of windows. He stated there are approximately three windows upstairs that overlap the existing structure. The original house is closer to the property line than allowed by the current setback requirements.
• Mr. Ashdown asked about whether the three upstairs windows overlap the existing building now. Mr. Wheadon stated that there is no overlapping currently but with the new addition there would be. He stated there are three windows on the downstairs that overlap the existing structure.
There was discussion on draining issues, elevating the roof deck and window size.
• Mr. Wheadon indicated that the size and number of windows on the upstairs had to do with privacy issue but even with the second-story addition and the two houses on either side they still had the possibility of seeing inside. They tried to reduce the window size but to allow as much light as possible into the upstairs.
• Haley Garbett, owner, intervened and indicated there is a rental unit on one side and that the tenants are constantly changing. She stated that the privacy issue is addressing that problem more than anything else.
• Ms. Mickelsen stated that she is bothered by the number of windows because it is too regimented. She stated that it makes the second story look like a caboose.
She stated that the applicant should add fewer windows and possibly add skylights to allow more light.
• The applicant made suggestions of how he could decrease the number of windows and still provide some symmetry.
• Ms. Giraud indicated her desire to keep the windows because that was the part that really breaks up the wall and it has good rhythm and ties in with the classical portion of the building. She stated the window pattern keeps the addition symmetrical and it gives a cohesiveness to that elevation.
Further discussion occurred on the windows. The Commission also discussed issues relating to the trim. The applicants noted the trim would be cedar and that the existing windows on two of the bedroom windows would be reconditioned.
Seeing no further questions of the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen asked if anyone from the audience desired to speak. Seeing none, Ms. Mickelsen indicated they would more to the Executive Session and she would entertain a motion or any further discussion.
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve this case as presented by the staff. It was seconded by Mr. Fitzsimmons. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz and Mr. Fitzsimmons voted “Aye”. Ms. Mickelsen, Acting Chairperson did not vote. The motion passed
OTHER BUSINESS Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to adjourn, it was seconded by Ms. Carl. The meeting adjourned at 7:39.