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 Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the n1eeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He 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, Mr. Simonsen 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.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. Mr. Christensen and Mr. Littig said they had not visited the site on 1100 East...
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Rowland moved to approve the minutes of the June 4, 2003 meeting, as amended. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye”. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Giraud stated that a representative from the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) would speak to the Commission regarding the vote taken by the RDA's Board of Directors on the submitted proposals for the commercial node on 500 North and 300 West Streets.
Mr. Simonsen declared a conflict of interest and recused himself from this portion of the meeting. Mr. Simonsen departed from the room. Ms. Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, assumed the position of Chairperson. Ms. Mickelsen invited the representative to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Mack McDonald, representing the Redevelopment Agency, introduced himself as a project coordinator with the Agency. He reported the following: The RDA received three proposals for the commercial node. The three were Overland Development Corporation, Garrison Development, and Dan Bethel. All three proposed to renovate the historic structures on 500 North, which included the nine-plex apartment building, the tri-plex/store building, and the small unit on Arctic Court directly behind those buildings.
The RDA entered into a ninety-day exclusive negotiation period with Dan Bethel, the only developer who submitted a proposal specifically for the historic structures. The RDA gave the developers an option of the entire parcel or individual pieces. The RDA gave Mr. Bethel an exclusive negotiation period so within that 90 day period (September 11, 2003) after he does his due diligence, the negotiations would be final and the RDA would be able to enter into the purchase agreement.
The other two developers submitted proposals for the entire development. One was rejected because it did not meet the criteria of the reuse plan or the design guidelines. The RDA is reviewing the other proposal.
Both the main developers submitted proposals that included a smaller amount of commercial development. The RDA originally had intended a larger component of commercial facing 300 West and the small pad on the corner of 500 North and 300 West. The RDA wants to meet the community's needs for commercial units. The Board asked RDA to revise the reuse plan to include more single-family residential and less commercial. The RDA will have to find out what the community wants, then go back and address those issues.
The RDA's immediate goal is hiring a landscaper to landscape the property according to the reuse plan that was approved by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. McDonald inquired if the Commission wanted to ask any questions.
Ms. Rowland asked if the proposals RDA is considering were mostly for the commercial or residential structures. Mr. McDonald said a little of both. He added that one proposal offered to turn the nine-plex building into seven townhouse units, but the RDA reduced the units to five. Mr. McDonald said that the bottom units in that structure do not meet code due to the low ceiling height so the developer considered making the bottom floor available for storage. Mr. McDonald sa.id that the developer wants to make the building a live/work environment for an art studio or some other similar business. He said that the back unit would be a residence for the manager of the complex.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the developers would seek outside financing for the project. Mr. McDonald said that RDA is selling the property at market value for the land only, including the buildings. Mr. McDonald said that the RDA estimated nearly $500,000 to rehabilitate both of the structures. He indicated that the developer would be able to use the equity on those buildings to seek outside financing.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the second prospective developer was interested in developing the property without the historic buildings and Mr. McDonald said that was correct. He noted that all the developers also submitted a proposal without the historic structures, or to change them. He said the RDA allowed for smaller contractors or developers to only take a portion of the property. Ms. Mickelsen expressed her delight about the possibility of saving those historic structures.
Ms. Lew inquired if the approved design guidelines would have to be reviewed again by this Commission. Mr. McDonald said that the design guidelines would remain, that they would interact with the historic district.
Ms. Giraud stated that anything that was not approved by the Historic Landmark Commission or the City Council would have to return to those boards for final approval.
Mr. Christensen also expressed his delight that the commercial components have been scaled back. He alluded to the Barnes and Noble property on 400 South and 600 East that has not been occupied for a year and one-half. He added that it is prime commercial property sitting vacant.
Ms. Mickelsen thanked Mr. McDonald for the updated information regarding the commercial node on 500 North and 300 West.
As there were no other public comments, Mr. Simonsen resumed his position as Chairperson and closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded into the public hearing portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 014-03 at 137 South 1100 East. by Mr. Cache Merrill. requesting approval to construct a one-and-one-half (1-1/2) story rear addition to the existing building on this property. located in the University Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project: Mr. Cache Merrill is requesting approval to construct a new rear addition to the two-story house. The home is located in the University Historic District in an R-2 Zoning District. The zone allows single-family and twin homes as permitted uses.
According to the historic site form completed in 1980, this house was built in 1905 by S. L. and Olive Billings. The front of the house has been substantially altered from its original design, when a portion of the front porch was enclosed in the 1940s, and then in 1999 when a previous owner removed most of the porch and cut a new door into the second story, all without permits. The current owner purchased the house when it was still under enforcement and worked with the Planning Staff to resolve the previous owner's mistakes.
The applicant is proposing a one-and on-half (1-1/2) story addition, with approximately 1,900 additional square feet of space. An existing 120 square foot one-story laundry room will be incorporated into the new addition. The addition will provide space for a master bedroom and bathroom, a great room, and open space in the upper story. The proposed materials for the addition will be cedar shingle panels with an architectural grade asphalt shingle roof. Vinyl-clad wood windows, a wood and glass panel door, and a set of wood French doors also are proposed on the new addition, with a mixture of single-hung and awning (south facade) windows.
Mr. Knight said that all proposed work must comply with height, yard, and bulk requirements of the R-2 zone. A preliminary review with the Permits Staff brought up no significant zoning issues.
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings for the addition based on Section 21A.34.020.34.030(G)(2, 3, 4, and 9) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, 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. In addition, Mr. Knight stated that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City also provide standards for reviewing accessory structures.
Staff determined the following standards are most pertinent to this application:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Applicable design guidelines:
8.1 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eave lines should be avoided.
Staff's discussion: This house is a typical example of a box- or foursquare-type house. Character-defining features such as the cornice along the second story roof eaves and the decorative brickwork would remain. Two existing windows on the back of the building would be covered and one opening would be enlarged into a door to the upper story of the addition. However, Staff is of the opinion that these windows are not character-defining features.
Staffs finding of fact: Placing the new addition to the rear of the historic structure will minimize the visual impact on the primary structure and allow the original proportions and character of the original house to remain prominent.
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.
Applicable design guidelines:
8.4Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition shall be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a differentiation between historic and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original building and the addition also may establish a more sound structural design to resist earthquake damage, while helping to define it as a later addition.
8.6 Do not construct a new addition or alteration that will hinder one's ability to interpret the historic character of the building or structure. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the building is inappropriate. An alteration that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the building is inappropriate. In addition, an alteration that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation on the historic style is inappropriate. An alteration that covers historically significant features is inappropriate as well.
Staff's discussion: The applicant has set the addition in from the side walls of the building by approximately eight inches. The proposed exterior materials, wood and asphalt shingles, differentiate the addition from the original portion of the house. The architectural details on the addition are compatible with the existing style of the house and do not seek to imply an earlier period or inaccurate variation on the historic style.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed new construction meets these standards.
4.Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Staffs discussion: There is an existing one-story sleeping porch addition on the back of the house. Staff was not able to determine if this was built at the same time as the original building or if it is a later addition. It has been extensively altered and no longer has its original features intact. Although the existing addition would be subsumed into the new addition, this approach has been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission in the past, and Staff is of the opinion that such additions can be successful, if the original form of the primary structure is retained and the design of the new addition is compatible with the historic character of the original structure.
Staff's finding of fact: The character-defining elements of the primary structure will be retained and preserved if the proposed addition is constructed.
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.
Applicable design guidelines:
B.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Setback an addition from historically important primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Keep the addition visually subordinate to the historic building. If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than the historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a connector to link it.
B.3 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
B.5Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building. For example, if the building historically had a horizontal emphasis, this orientation shall be continued in the addition.
B.7When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition shall not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.
B.B Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition. Painted wood clapboard and brick are typical of many traditional additions.
B.9 Minimize negative technical effects to original features when designing an addition. Avoid construction methods, for example, that would cause vibration that may damage historic foundations. New alterations also should be designed in such a way that they can be removed without destroying original materials or features.
B.10 Use windows in the addition that are similar in character to those of the historic building or structure. If the historic windows are wood and double-hung, for example, new windows should appear to be similar to them. Depending on the detailing, clad wood or synthetic materials may be considered.
B.14Keep a new addition physically and visually subordinate to the historic building.
The addition shall be set back significantly from primary facades. A minimum setback of ten feet is recommended. The addition should be consistent with the scale and character of the historic building or structure. Large additions should
HLC MINUTES- 6/18/2003Page7
be separated from the historic building by using a smaller connection element to link the two.
8.15 Roof forms shall be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate.
8.16On primary facades of an addition use a solid-to-void ratio that is similar to that to of the historic building. The solid-to-void ratio is the relative percentage of wall to windows and doors seen on a facade.
Staff's discussion: Although the proposed addition is large in relation to the existing building footprint, the mass of the addition is located behind and is subordinate to the original portion of the house. The massing of the new construction will help make the addition distinguishable from the original portion of the building, and the change in materials from the original house (brick) to cedar shingles on the addition will also differentiate new work from the old. The applicant also set back the walls of the addition from the side walls of the original building to further differentiate the addition from the original portion of the house.
The proposed windows and doors are compatible in scale and proportion with the doors and windows seen on the historic building. Vinyl clad windows have typically been allowed by the Historic Landmark Commission on rear additions to contributing building, when the size and proportion of the windows are similar to those of the historic building.
The proposed 8 1/2:12 gabled roof with 3:12 shed dormers is a steeper pitch than the roof pitch on the original house, but the steeper roof slope of the addition is more in keeping with the proportions of the addition than a shallower slope, and provides the owner with more living space.
Staff's finding of fact: The main portion of the historic building will not be significantly affected, and no character-defining architectural features on the back of the house would be negatively affected by the construction of a new addition. The work could be removed and the original integrity of the building would be unimpaired. The new work will be differentiated from the old and is compatible with the design of the original house.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the proposed addition if the following conditions are met: This approval is for design only, and the request must meet all other applicable City requirements."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Christensen inquired about vehicle parking. Mr. Knight said that there is an existing garage located in the back of the driveway on the south side of the building. He added that there is legal parking in front of the driveway, plus the driveway, itself. Mr. Christensen then inquired if that much parking would give the owners the availability to get cars off the road. Mr. Knight said he thought there would be enough room.
For the record, Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any comments from the neighbors regarding the construction. Mr. Knight made it clear that Staff did not hear from any neighbors.
Ms. Heid asked for clarification if the neighbors were aware of the proposed addition while it is in the planning stage. Mr. Knight stated that the ordinance requires neighbors to be notified within 85 feet surrounding the subject property. He also made the point that neighbors across the street were notified even though they are not in the historic district.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Cache Merrill, the applicant, was present. He stated that he concurred with the staff report, except that the accessory building in the back is a shed and not a garage; a car would not fit into it. Mr. Merrill said that the driveway is ten feet wide. He said that several of his neighbors mentioned that they received a notice of this public hearing.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring about the framework of the proposed new addition. Mr. Merrill said that the foundation would have a three-foot crawl space and it would have a 2" x 4" wood frame.
• Mr. Christensen asked the applicant about the material for the windows and doors. Mr. Merrill said the material had not been decided. He pointed out the windows that would be double-paned, double-hung and the awning type windows. Mr. Christensen inquired if the awning windows would have true divided lights. Mr. Merrill thought they would be, but then said that the smaller windows on drawings would be changed to match the other awning windows, because the window manufacturer did not make a window that small.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons inquired about the second floor. Mr. Merrill said that he was not certain what they would do with the interior of the second floor.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Simonsen said that he would entertain a motion at any time.
Mr. Christensen asked the architects on the Commission if the drawings were detailed enough to show such things as the treatment of eaves, and the finishes at the edges so the project could be approved at this meeting, or if it needed to go the Architectural Subcommittee for final review. Mr. Simonsen said that there were a few things that could be handled with notes and suggested clarifying the materials and detailing as part of the motion. He added that Staff could probably have the final review. When Mr. Christensen inquired if the soffit and fascia would be wood, Mr. Knight said that it was his understanding that they would be wood. Ms. Giraud stated that vinyl or aluminum on the soffit and fascia would not be allowed for additions on contributing buildings.
A short discussion took place regarding some of the detailing on the proposed project.
First motion:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case 014-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the findings of fact from the materials presented by the Commission Staff and by the discussion with the applicant, and approve the addition to the structure at 137 South 1100 East, with the condition that before a building permit is issued the Commission Staff make final review of the details of the addition, including soffit and fascia to make sure that they are properly designed and made of wood, detailing of the single-hung windows, and the awning windows have true divided light. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion.
There was some confusion if the windows would be double-hung or single-hung. It was concluded that the windows would be single-hung.
Mr. Simonsen expressed his concern about requiring the awning windows to have true divided lights. He believed the Commission could specify that the windows could not have an interior grid, that the Muntins would have to be applied on the outside of the window.
Ms. Giraud pointed out something unusual on the first story north elevation single-hung windows. She said they were disproportionate, that the top pane was larger than the bottom pane.
Since there were additional questions for the applicant, it was a general consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting to public comment. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting and invited the applicant to come forward for additional questions.
Mr. Christensen pointed out the windows where there was a question. Mr. Merrill made it clear that those windows were drawn incorrectly; the pane would be equal in size.
As there were no additional questions, Mr. Simonsen reclosed the meeting to public comment, and the Commission continued with the executive portion of the meeting.
Ms. Mickelsen commented for the record that the applicant's house will be substantially larger than the surrounding houses if the addition is constructed, especially the tiny 1890s houses on Bueno Avenue. She pointed out that the house next door is a tiny English Tudor and the houses on the rest of the block are about the same size.
Mr. Christensen amended his motion. Amended and final motion:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case 014-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission
accept the materials presented by the Commission Staff and by the discussion with the applicant, and approve the addition to the structure at 137 South 1100 East, based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation, with the condition that before a building permit is issued, the Commission Staff make a final review of the following details: 1) The soffit and fascia to make certain that they are properly designed and made of wood; 2) The single-hung windows will be functional and although the panes in the single-hung windows portrayed on the drawings are not divided equally, the upper and lower panes will be the same dimension; and 3) All the small windows on the north elevation will be the same awning-type window with true divided lights. Ms. Rowland's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Just for the record, Mr. Sin1onsen stated that the Historic Landmark Commission just approved a substantial addition on a home in an historic district.
Case No. 015-03, at 205 East First Avenue. by Madeleine Choir School. represented by VCBO Architects. requesting conceptual approval for a development plan for the Madeleine Choir School campus. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District and is also a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Ms. Rowland declared a conflict of interest and recused herself from this portion of the meeting. Ms. Rowland departed from the room.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the Madeleine Choir School was not ready to have a formal approval because of the need to have elevations and design development submitted. Mr. Knight said that the officials of the Madeleine Choir School are looking for a conceptual approval of the changes from the original plans.
Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project: The officials of the Madeleine Choir School are requesting the Historic Landmark Commission's input and approval of a long range plan for the campus. The campus formerly housed Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, which moved to their new site on Guardsman Way in November 2002. The campus includes five buildings, four of which are at least fifty years old and are considered contributing structures in the Avenues Historic District. The campus is also individually listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. This block is in the Institutional Zoning District.
The Historic Landmark Commission reviewed the Madeleine Choir School's previous campus plan proposal at its December 4, 2002 meeting. A copy of the staff report and minutes from that meeting were filed with these minutes. The Commission voted to table the proposal to allow the applicant time to explore further options with their architect, Planning Staff, and the Architectural Subcommittee.
Representatives from the Madeleine Choir School met with the Architectural Subcommittee on January 22, 2003 and February 26, 2003 to discuss revisions to their previous proposal. School officials also met with the Greater Avenues Community Council and the City's Development Review Team. On April 3, 2003, Ms. Elizabeth Giraud from the City Planning Staff attended a school parent meeting to discuss the changes and clarify the Historic Landmark Commission's approval process.
The applicants have modified their plan and now propose a long-range plan for campus development. The plan is intended to be visionary in scope, and further detail will be provided as funding becomes available for individual projects to be implemented.
SHORT TERM PROJECTS:
"A" Building (now Erbin Hall): The proposal for this building has been extensively revised. The school's previous proposal was to demolish most of the existing building, including the 1910 Chapel, and the 1906 library/gymnasium and classroom wing. The 1862 farmhouse and 1985 addition would have remained.
The new proposal would retain much more of the historic fabric. The most significant parts of the building, including the farmhouse, the chapel, and the library/gymnasium would be retained and renovated. The farmhouse will remain in its current use as offices and meeting space, but the second floor classrooms would either be updated for classrooms or converted into apartment space for a building caretaker. The chapel will retain its historic function, but will be reconfigured to meet the school's needs and the Catholic liturgy (Rowland Hall was historically associated with the Episcopal Church and the chapel was constructed to suit that church's requirements). The library/gymnasium will be altered to house a two-story library in the former gym and choir rehearsal space in the former library. The classroom addition constructed in 1985 would also be renovated. The 1906 classroom addition to the north of the library would be removed and a new two-story, larger classroom addition would be constructed in its place. The three-story brick atrium on the interior of the classroom addition would also be retained and renovated into a music library and study space.
Renovation of the existing building and construction of the new addition is expected to begin within the next year or two, and the school expects to submit final drawings to the Commission soon in order to meet that timeframe. Renovation of the existing buildings will be completed as additional funds are raised.
Mr. Knight discussed the required processes and preliminary analysis for the short term projects.
Alterations to Erbin Hall: In 1997, Rowland Hall proposed to demolish part of Erbin Hall and construct a new classroom wing east of the existing building. There was extensive discussion among members of the Historic Landmark Commission regarding how to process the application, and whether the project should be classified as an alteration to a building or a demolition. In that case, the Historic Landmark Commission voted that the work was an alteration because less than fifty percent of the building would have been removed to make way for the new addition. Furthermore, the Historic Landmark Commission determined that the section proposed for removal was not a significant portion of the structure in its own right, but contributed to the overall significance of the building because it was more than fifty years old.
In another recent case, the Historic Landmark Commission determined that Zions Securities' proposal for Promised Valley Playhouse was considered a demolition, as more than seventy-five percent of the building was demolished, the historic use was destroyed, and much of the historic fabric was lost.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed work on this building should be processed as an alteration of a landmark structure based upon the following reasons:
• Less of the building is proposed for removal than a previous proposal for the same structure.
• The historic uses of the structure would remain.
• Most of the contributing elements of the building would remain. The history of the building is one of a series of additions (portions of the building date from 1862, 1906, 1910, and 1985). Sections of the building that have a significant level of architectural and historical character, such as the farmhouse, chapel, and library will be retained.
Mr. Knight stated that if the Historic Landmark Commission chose to agree with Staff's line of reasoning, the project will be subject to review under the provisions of Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. The standards were included in the staff report, which accompanied the minutes.
Mr. Knight stated that much detail on this project remains to be supplied, but Staff is of the opinion that the general siting of the proposed addition meets the standards of the ordinance because most of the addition will be constructed with the existing building footprint and the proposed ten-foot expansion would not cover any significant architectural details or character-defining features.
LONG TERM PROJECTS:
Other projects proposed within the long-range plan are much more conceptual in nature. The Madeleine Choir School does not anticipate constructing these projects for some time. The design guidelines of these buildings are not being reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission, at this time. These projects would be individually designed and separately reviewed by the City and the Historic Landmark Commission as funds are raised. The school is requesting review of the master plan as a concept in order to steer its planning and fundraising efforts in the future. Future projects include:
Van E {now McCarthey Hall) demolition and new gym and performance hall: The school has relocated the proposed gymnasium and performance hall from the east side of the block to the site of the existing 1970 (and thus non-contributing) Van E Classroom building (now McCarthey Hall) at the corner of First Avenue and "A" Street. Most of the mass of these new structures would be below the existing ground level, though design of the buildings is very preliminary at this point. Demolition of McCarthey hall and construction of the new buildings would not occur until work on Erbin Hall is complete and 'funds for the construction are raised. The current classrooms in McCarthey Hall could then be relocated into the new classrooms in Erbin Hall.
New classroom building: A new two-story classroom building may be constructed on the site of the current parking lot east of Erbin Hall.
Renovation of three "8" Street buildings: The historic Rawlins, Caine, and Jennings homes along "8" Street would be restored and would remain in use by the school as classrooms for Kindergarten and possibly pre-school, and office space. The sequence of this work relative to the other projects is not set, but it is expected that the buildings would be rehabilitated as funding becomes available.
Relocation of Caine Mansion and new chapel: The school has also begun to examine the possibility of moving the Caine Mansion (the middle of the three buildings on "8" Street) approximately forty feet north from its existing location. The move would allow construction of a new chapel on the former site of the house, at the head of the campus' main quadrangle.
Site work: The covered walkway/cloister and campanile or bell tower proposed previously remain a future possibility. These elements, along with modified landscaping and the arrangement of future buildings would create the sense of a quad in the open space south of Erbin Hall.
Mr. Knight discussed the required processes and preliminary analysis for the long term projects.
Van E (now McCarthey Hall) demolition: As a non-contributing building because of its age, McCarthey Hall may be approved for demolition through an administrative process. Under the provisions of Section 21A.34.020.10.020(F) of the Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, notice is sent out to the Historic Landmark Commission, interested parties, and surrounding neighbors of the request for demolition. If no objections are received within 14 days, the Historic Landmark Commission Staff can issue an administrative approval for a demolition permit.
New gym, performance hall. chapel. and classroom building: These new buildings would be evaluated under the provisions of Section 21A.34.020.34.020(H)(1 through 4), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. The standards were included in the staff report, which accompanied the minutes.
Mr. Knight said that it is not appropriate to fully evaluate the proposed buildings at this stage in the process, since basic design matters have yet to be resolved. In terms of the building footprint and location on the site in relation to the existing buildings, Staff is of the opinion that the regular spacing of the structures respects the character of the buildings on the surrounding blocks. The uniform setbacks, and the concept that the buildings would have entrances both to the street and to the main quadrangle also would help to fit the new buildings into the surrounding streetscape. These concepts should be maintained as the design is developed.
Renovation of the three "8" Street buildings: Substantial alterations or additions are not envisioned for these buildings. Like the modifications to Erbin Hall, this work would be evaluated in terms of the standards in Section 21A34.020(G) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, outlined earlier in the minutes.
Relocation of Caine Mansion: Relocation of a contributing structure is evaluated under the provisions of Section 21A.34.020.34.020(1)(1 through 6) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Relocation of Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. The standards were included in the staff report, which accompanied the minutes.
Mr. Knight stated that in this case, Staff is of the view that the overall effect on the integrity of the building and surrounding streetscape would be maintained, since the house would be moved a short distance and would remain on the same street face of the same block. Safeguards to ensure the preservation of the building's architectural and structural integrity should be included as part of any future proposal.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Overall, Staff has determined that the revised long-term plan strikes a positive balance between meeting the needs of the school and preservation of the historic character of the buildings and campus. Staff finds that the proposed long-range plan meets the standards of the ordinance, insofar as it can be determined at this stage in the design process. Staff recommends that the Commission identify any additional design issue with the Madeleine Choir School's site plan, and discuss possible solutions to these issues. Individual projects will then be reviewed through a separate process as funds are raised and the designs are further developed."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff. Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the representative from the Madeleine Choir School to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Gregory Glenn, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that he was the director of music at the Cathedral of Madeleine and the director of the Madeleine Choir School. Mr. Glenn said that the Madeleine Choir School is patterned after choir schools in Europe and serves as a high quality institution of education for the young people who serve the Cathedral Church as choristers. He said that the school provides community concerts throughout the year. Mr. Glenn pointed out that the school began in 1990 as an after school program and opened as a full time academic institution in 1996. He noted that the school now has 225 students in grades kindergarten through eight.
Mr. Glenn stated that the Madeleine Choir School moved to the new campus in December 2002 and immediately began working on a new master plan for the campus. He stated that he thought it was fair to say that the officials at the Madeleine Choir School received some bad advice and came up with a proposal that was somewhat monstrous and inappropriate for the site. Mr. Glenn said that after meeting with members of this Commission in the Architectural Subcommittee, a number of scenarios were worked out and moved forward with the master plan that is being presented at this meeting.
Mr. Simonsen 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 inquiring where the performing hall would be. Mr. Glenn said that it was difficult to see on the drawings, but it would be on the First Avenue elevation.
• Mr. Christensen talked about the covered walkway that went around the entire campus on the original plan but noticed that it was not portrayed on these plans. Mr. Glenn said that the new plans did not include the walkway because more grassy play area was needed. Mr. Christensen stated that he was thrilled to see that the historic buildings would be retained. He also mentioned that he was pleased that they were looking at relocating the Caine Mansion rather than seeking demolition. Mr. Christensen inquired if the site for the future chapel was chosen because it was centered on the quadrangle. Mr. Glenn said that it was because traditionally campuses of this kind have a central focus which is generally the heart of the campus.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission could assume that no major changes would be made on the submitted renderings of the master plan if it was conceptually approved at this meeting. Mr. Glenn stated that he did not anticipate any major changes because the mission of the school was clear. He added that the submitted plan seems to be most suitable to meet any future long term needs. Mr. Glenn said that he neglected to mention that he terminated his relationship with the previous architect and the Madeleine Choir School will be endeavoring in an RFQ (Request For Qualifications) process shortly to find an architectural firm that can develop architecturally significant buildings and the alterations that is being proposed.
Mr. Fitzsimmons said that he appreciated the fact that the Madeleine Choir School plans to have this kind of development which is very much the same as the plans discussed at the subcommittee meetings. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked what the first project would be. Mr. Glenn said that the school's primary interest is in getting all the children into one building for their safety and security, so by altering the wing on the back of Erbin Hall this would be accomplished. He said by having all the students and all of the principal curricular activities in that building, the students could be carefully monitored and the movement from class to class would be in a most efficient and safe way. Mr. Fitzsimmons expressed concern that a new architect could come up with an entirely different plan of dealing with the existing buildings. He asked if the RFQ was written in such a way that the architects would have to adhere to the schematic, that was presented. Mr. Glenn stated that the plan had been approved by the School Board and by all the Church leadership, so the plans would not be changed, by any new architectural firm. He noted that the officials at the Madeleine Choir School will only work with someone who is willing to stay within the parameters of the proposed plans. Mr. Glenn added that the master plan would essentially capture all the needs and concerns in preserving historic fabric on the campus. Ms. Mickelsen said that she thought all the concerns had been raised.
• Ms. Giraud stated that there is a provision in the ordinance that a traffic study is required in an Institutional Zone reviewed by the City's Transportation Division. She said that she discussed this matter with the Zoning Administrator and he indicated that he did not think a traffic study was necessary, and if the Transportation Division concurs, then a traffic study would not be required. Ms. Giraud stated that she did not believe the school would have to do a traffic study.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Simonsen stated that he hoped that the Historic Landmark Commission would not be so restrictive with this master plan that there would be no leeway for interpretation, given the nature of the conceptual plan. He added that Rowland Hall, the previous occupant of the site for over 150 years, made hundreds of adaptations to meet its needs and hoped that the Commission would leave some flexibility. Mr. Simonsen said that there was no way to anticipate 50 or 100 years from now what needs might change. He said he expected that it would take some time to carry out a project of this magnitude.
Mr. Christensen said that he was partially reacting to the plans the Commission saw a few months ago which in his opinion were very bad, but "what I see here is so wonderful in using what is there and crafting the campus in such a way that it makes it so useful to this new owner. I almost want to applaud them for the care that seems to have been undertaken so far. I am delighted to see this."
Mr. Parvaz said that he had the same feeling. He also said that he thought it was important for the Historic Landmark Commission to make its decision whether the existing buildings would be reviewed as a demolition or an alteration. Mr. Parvaz introduced another issue that had not been discussed, and that is when a subject property under review has four frontages with inner and outer spaces. He inquired if the same instruction or guidelines would be used to review the interrelationships of each building with one another inside the campus where a strong street frontage does not exist.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he believed the same guidelines would be used for a building where the primary facade, that fronts the street, is not the significant facade of the building.
Mr. Knight said that he thought this was an interesting point Mr. Parvaz raised and would be appropriate in this case. He added that one has to look at buildings and determine what the most significant parts are of that building. Mr. Knight said that the Commission usually reviews buildings where there is an important street face. Mr. Parvaz expressed concern that the Commission would be setting a precedence for future cases. He added that he also thought the existing guidelines could be used.
Mr. Parvaz suggested that the Commission clarify if each project should have a separate motion, then make a motion for the entire master plan for this case, or would just a conceptual plan be considered for this case.
Ms. Giraud said that the proposals for the campus would be presented to the Commission in different stages, as the applicant is able to raise the needed funds for the projects. She said that she did not think the applicant could raise enough money in the next few months to fund the entire project. Ms. Giraud said that the Madeleine Choir School's first order of business is to look at Erbin Hall.
Ms. Giraud said that based on past experiences, she would recommend that the Erbin Hall project be considered a major alteration, rather than a demolition and in that case, the Commission would review the standards in ordinance pertaining to alterations. Ms. Giraud said that when it comes to relocating the Caine Mansion, the Commission would review the specific criteria for relocating a contributing building. She continued by saying that when the Commission reviews the new construction for the gym, the standards in the ordinance would require the Commission to consider the streetscape of First Avenue, as well as the rest of the campus; it would not stand on its own. Ms. Giraud said that the Commission did not have to decide on all the components right now, just the conceptual ideas of the plans.
Mr. Parvaz still expressed his concern that if the Commission voted on the concept, the approval would be giving the school the expectation that the McCarthey Hall building could be demolished in the future. He said he was hoping for specific guidelines.
Mr. Knight said that the Commission again would just be approving the plan in concept. He added that McCarthey Hall is considered a non-contributing building because it was built in 1970, and would remain a non-contributing building until it is fifty years old in 2020. Demolition of the building would be processed administratively. He also said if someone asked if it could be demolished, Staff would have to allow it at this time and the Commission would only review the reuse plan.
Mr. Parvaz said that he thought this discussion being on record was good. He said that he was also concerned about new architects changing the concept of the master plan. Mr. Parvaz felt like the whole project would have to be closely monitored.
Mr. Simonsen stated that Mr. Parvaz made a good point, but agreed that a conceptual approval at this time would not constitute an approval for each project, including the McCarthey Hall.
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission has conceptually approved other master plans, such as for Liberty Park and Memory Grove. He added that the City requested a review for each component as soon as the details were finalized. Mr. Knight said by rendering a conceptual approval, it would give the applicant a better understanding about what can be done with the property.
Mr. Christensen inquired if future Historic Landmark Commissions would be bound by a conceptual approval. He stated that this Commission could not know what future Commissioners would do with the master plan. Mr. Christensen said for example no one knows how a future Commission would accept the relocation of the Caine Mansion.
Ms. Giraud said that she consulted with the City Attorney and he said that the City could not give an applicant the guarantee that this site plan would come through another Commission. She added that a new Commission might find the plan unacceptable. Ms. Giraud said, "I would just say that at this point in time the Historic Landmark Commission of Salt Lake City found the site to be acceptable and an appropriate way to develop the campus, which meets the guidelines of the ordinance." Mr. Parvaz said that he was pleased that Ms. Giraud consulted with the City Attorney's office. Ms. Giraud also said that if the plans were significantly changed, the applicant would have to substantiate the information to justify their argument.
Mr. Parvaz brought up another issue by saying that there are other elements on the site other than buildings that should be included in the conceptual approval. He pointed out such things as the main axis of the site, historic walkways, stairs, curbs, planters, pavers retaining walls, railings, fences, and other such decorated objects. Mr. Parvaz read a portion of Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G)(3), "All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time..." He expressed his concern once more about the clarity of the guidelines. Mr. Simonsen suggested that it would be appropriate to clarify those issues in the motion. Ms. Giraud also said that those elements could be incorporated in the RFQs. Mr. Parvaz said that these are the features that should be preserved. Mr. Simonsen said that he did not know if that was for us to determine at this point in time. Mr. Simonsen called for a motion.
Motion:
In the matter of Case No. 015-03, Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the general concept of the master plan as shown on documents presented to the Historic Landmark Commission, based on the information in the staff report, the observation of members of the Commission who visited the site, and the discussion during the meeting. Individual projects will be reviewed separately, but the master plan shall be used as a guideline for the general direction of future work, such as buildings or portions of buildings to be restored, preserved, or demolished. In addition, the master plan should address the following items: The main axis of the site, walkways, stairs, curbs, planters, pavers, retaining walls, railings, fences, platforms, seats, and decorative objects, such as statues, trellises, and memorial features. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was in a state of recusion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Recognition of members whose terms were expiring.
Ms. Giraud stated that the terms of Mr. Wayne Gordon and Mr. William Littig were expiring and this would be their last meeting.
In behalf of the entire Commission and Staff, Mr. Simonsen extended appreciation to Mr. Gordon and Mr. Littig for their services on the Historic Landmark Commission and wished them well in their future endeavors.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Littig moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 5:30 P.M.