June 7, 2000

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 William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, and Robert Young. Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Sarah Miller, and Mark Wilson were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.

The meeting was called to order at 4:20 P.M. by Chairperson, Wayne Gordon. Mr. Gordon announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Gordon asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.

A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the May 3, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

NEW BUSINESS

Case No. 013-00, at 228 West 600 North, by Harvey Boyd, represented by Cheryl Boyd, requesting approval to construct a three-car garage in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.

Mr. Knight stated that the applicants were requesting approval to construct a one-and one-half story, three-car garage, on a vacant portion of the Jot at 228 West 600 North. He added that an eight-unit apartment currently sits on the property, along with a community garden. Mr. Knight said that the carports were administratively approved in 1997 because they were located out of the public view of the property.

Mr. Knight said that the proposed building would be 24'0" x 39'9", with three parking bays, and room for storage in the upper half story of the building. He indicated that the 5/12 pitched room would rise to 18'6" at the peak of the gable and synthetic stucco would be used on the first story walls, with cedar shingles on the dormer and gable end walls.

Mr. Knight proceeded through Section 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District, of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, which was included in the staff report.

Section 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District:

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

1. Scale and Form.

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

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

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

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

Staffs Discussion: The surrounding structures are a mix of single and two story buildings in a range of historic and contemporary styles, ranging from the contemporary apartments to the west and south to a number of single-story Victorian cottages to the south and east. There are no accessory buildings of similar height in the immediate vicinity, but multi-story garages were a common

feature in the city during the historic period. Examples range from modest, barn-like buildings to the grand carriage houses of South Temple. The proportions of the building are similar to those exhibited on the surrounding residential buildings. The 5/12 gable roof shape is commonly seen on many historic outbuildings. Staff's Findings of fact: The application complied with this standard.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

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

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

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

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

Staff's Discussion: The applicant has presented two possible window patterns for review. Of the two, staff believed that the "alternate window pattern" with two single hung vinyl windows in each gable, would be a more historically appropriate fenestration pattern. The other proposal, with a single horizontal sliding window, is not a commonly seen window pattern on historic buildings. There is an entrance metal paneled door proposed for each drive bay of the garage. Synthetic stucco has been approved for use on new buildings on Capitol Hill, as have aluminum soffit and fascia.

Staff's Findings of fact: The application complied with this standard.

3. Relationship to Street.

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

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

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

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

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: The proposed building would be located on the interior of the block, and would be set back from the street.

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

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: This was not applicable because no subdivision was proposed.

Mr. Knight also referred to Section 9 of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, that addresses accessory buildings. He stated that one guideline addressed preserving existing historic accessory buildings, where feasible, and another requires garages to be detached structures in most cases. He added that the third dealt with the details of constructing a new garage:

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

Mr. Knight said that in this case, one of the most contentious design features of the apartment building at this address when it went through the approval process was the flat roof. Many neighbors would have preferred a pitched roof on the apartments. The applicant has chosen to skirt this issue by using a gabled roof on the garage. He noted that other portions of this guideline had been addressed by the applicant in this design.

Mr. Knight stated that staff recommended approval of the design with the alternate window pattern of two paired single-hung windows on each dormer.

Ms. Cheryl Boyd, representing the applicant, was present. She said that she had nothing more to add to the staff report.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Ms. Mitchell led the discussion and asked about the color of the synthetic stucco and the garage doors. Ms. Boyd said that the proposed garage would be constructed to match the existing apartment building and the garage doors would be a contrasting color.

• Mr. Littig inquired about the 8-inch metal fascia. He recommended care in installing the fascia because the aluminum tends to wrinkle while it is being applied. Ms. Boyd said that would be addressed and the color would match the garage doors.

• Ms. Rowland asked if the intended use for the garage was for the renters of the apartment building. Ms. Boyd said that there were eight units in the apartment building and two more parking places were needed because there were only fourteen parking places. She said that two of the garage units would be used by tenants and the third would be used for storage of the maintenance equipment.

Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:

Ms. Katherine Gardner, who is chairperson of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that the apartment building was not a "favorite thing in the district" and "couldn't imagine how it got past you in 1995". She said that the garage would not make the property any better and hoped that it would not make the property any worse. There was some discussion regarding the amount of parking places that were available to the tenants. Ms. Gardener concluded by saying, "I hope this will make it better, but I don't know how."

• Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, questioned where the garage would be located on the property. Mr. Knight pointed out on the plan where the proposed garage would be located. Ms. Mangold said that Mr. Gardner covered all the comments she was going to make.

Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

A short discussion took place. Mr. Simonsen inquired if the meeting could be re opened to ask the applicant's representative further questions. It was unanimous approval to have the meeting re-opened. Mr. Gordon re-opened the meeting.

Mr. Simonsen inquired if the applicant would consider constructing carports, rather than a closed garage. Ms. Boyd said that the applicant did not want to build another carport because he believed he would get better clients by building a garage. She added that there had been a lot people who had expressed an interest in a garage to protect their expensive cars.

Mr. Christensen asked Ms. Boyd if the drawings accurately portrayed the proposed garage doors. Ms. Boyd said that the proposed garage door pattern was for five horizontal panels for each door.

Mr. Christensen inquired if there was a demand for the enclosed space that might warrant future expansion or changing the existing carports. Mr. Boyd said there was not at this time. As there were no further questions, Mr. Gordon re-closed this portion of the meeting.

Mr. Christensen said that due to the location of the proposed garage, it would almost be hidden from the street, to concur with what had been said that the concerns of the public was for the apartment building itself and not the proposed garage. He added that since the apartment building was not being reviewed at this meeting, he believed that the proposed garage would not be a further detriment to the neighborhood.

Motion:

Mr. Young moved for approval of Case No. 013-00, based on staff's findings of fact and recommendation, of the design with the alternate window pattern of two paired single-hung windows on each dormer, and forwarded to the architect to be incorporated into the proposal. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 014-00, at 400 South between 600 and 700 East Streets, by Utah Transit Authority, represented by Hal Johnson, requesting approval to construct a light-rail station in the Central City Historic District.

Mr. Payne recused himself from this portion of the meeting.

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 Utah Transit Authority was requesting approval for a light rail stop along the east-west light rail line that would run along 400 and 500 South from Main Street to the University of Utah. Mr. Knight added that the line would run down the middle of 400 South and the station would be located between 600 East and approximately 650 East Street, which would be in the Central City Historic District. Mr. Knight pointed out that the east-west line would run to 900 East then would go around the curve on 500 South to west of Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of Utah campus.

Mr. Knight said that the initial plans for the east-west line called for a unique design for each station. He indicated that the current proposal was to use the same uniform design as the existing station at South Temple and West Temple Streets. Mr. Knight said that there were funds budgeted for an art program to commission art works for each station in order to add character and a sense of place to each stop on the line.

Mr. Knight proceeded through Section 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District, of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, which was included in the staff report.

Section 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District:

1. Scale and Form.

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

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

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

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

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

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

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

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

3. Relationship to Street.

Staffs discussion: Staff searched for, but could not locate, examples of historic trolley stops in Salt Lake City. Within the city, trolleys were more like the current bus system, in that stops were marked with signage, and passengers stepped off of the trolley directly on to the street when the trolley stopped. In a few instances, such as the Highland Park streetcar suburb, the developer installed a small shelter to provide shade and protection from inclement weather for residents of the suburb. The single story and horizontal proportions of the proposed shelter were in keeping with the surrounding streetscape, which was largely a strip commercial along this stretch of 400 South Street. He said that the design for the canopy was based on the canopy at the front entrance to the former Hotel Utah, now the Joseph Smith Memorial Building. Mr. Knight said that staff believed that the historic character of this area should be prominently addressed by the artist/artists commissioned to provide public art for this station, the Historic Landmark Commission should be included in the planning for this art, and the proposed artwork should be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission as part of the design approval process.

Mr. Knight reported that additional street trees and black, single lamp light poles similar to those used on the 400 South viaduct over 1-15 would be installed along the sidewalk. He added that additional streetscape improvements would include landscaping and colored concrete crosswalks at the intersections along the line. Mr. Knight indicated that UTA would not allow mid block crossing anywhere along 400 South.

Mr. Knight said that there had been some previous discussion about naming the station "Trolley Square". He said that although it would be, in effect, marketing a commercial enterprise, and the station would not directly be adjacent to the square, Trolley Square is a local landmark, and exerted a large historical influence on the development of this neighborhood. Mr. Knight talked about the "The Ballpark" station at 1300 South that was about as far from Franklin-Covey Field as this station would be from Trolley Square.

Mr. Knight continued discussing the proposal by saying that there was already a "City Center" station on the TRAX line, so a "Central City" station could cause confusion, especially among riders unfamiliar with Salt Lake City.

Mr. Knight spoke of the letter submitted by Mr. Rob Rowen, Chair, and Mr. Matt Wolverton, Vice Chair, of the Central City Neighborhood Council, which was included in the staff report, suggesting changes to the proposed design of the station, including 1) renaming the station to the "Central City Station", and using historic materials and design elements to distinguish the station from other along the rail line, in addition to the proposed community art.

Mr. Knight presented the staff's findings of fact:

The application was difficult to assess within the confines of the standards regulating new construction, but staff made the following findings:

1. A mix of single and multi-story buildings would surround the proposed station. The scale, height, and size of the proposed buildings would be compatible with the surrounding streetscape, which is not historic any longer, and mostly commercial.

2. The design of the canopies would be compatible with the surrounding streetscape. The bronze colored metal building material would be neutral in visual impact and an appropriate material for this building type.

3. The proposed streetscape improvements would be appropriate for the district. Street trees and other landscaping will improve 400 South's "walkability" and attractiveness to pedestrian traffic.

4. Subdivision of lots is not an issue in this application.

In conclusion, Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: Staff found that the proposed design of the station would be appropriate to the Central City Historic District. The unique character of the Central City Historic District and the surrounding neighborhoods were best addressed in the design for the public art that will be installed. Staff recommended approval of this application, with the following conditions:

1. The final station design should be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission staff and any substantial changes to the design made as part of the design/build process should return to the full Commission for further review.

2. The design for the station's public art should include a component addressing the historic character of Central City, and the proposed artwork should be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission.

3. UTA and the City should explore alternate names for this station.

There was a short discussion regarding the name the proposed station and how the other stations were names, such as 6400 South station, and so on.

Mr. Hal Johnson, representing Utah Transit Authority, was present. He stated that the stations on the north-south light rail line typically have an address name so people would be aware of it and also a name for the station. He said that Murray City chose for 4500 South station as the "Murray North" station. Mr. Johnson said that the cities usually pick the name. He added that if there was a desire to change the name, it should be done quickly so the name would be included in all the literature.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Mr. Littig inquired if there was anything that could be done to make the proposed station more individual. Mr. Johnson said that the artists would be the ones asked to make the stations individual. He added that the artists were being included in the early planning stages. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the budget for the artwork was not very large so it would not make a significant difference in the design. Mr. Littig talked about the proposed name of "Trolley Square" for the station and believed that it would not resemble the historic brick buildings at "Trolley Square". He suggested changing the proposed materials for the stations so people would "really have a sense of place when you get to a station". Mr. Johnson said that UTA would not dictate what the artists would do, however that process still needs to be articulated. He added that there were effective cost savings achieved by making the stations uniform. Mr. Johnson said that part of the intent was to make the stations recognizable. Mr. Littig discussed the importance of making the stations recognizable so people would know where they were. Mr. Johnson stated that UTA was trying to complete the project as quickly as possible and at as low of cost as possible, yet produce a good product. He added that "UTA believed the design of the stations were working well and did not see a reason to deviate from the design". Mr. Littig said that it was an "embarrassment in the twenty-first century, that we are going back 100 years" to not be involved in a better architectural design. Mr. Littig said, "I think we are better than this."

• Mr. Simonsen said that he believed that if the stations would have more individual character, they would be more conducive to people trying to find their way, rather than having them all uniform. He said that he had ridden light rail and transit systems in many places in this country, as well as in Europe, and he found that the stations were easier to identify when they had individuality. Mr. Johnson said that the design of the canopy and amenities were "fixed". He said that there was an inter-local agreement between the City and UTA, which was signed by the Mayor and the members of the City Council. He added that it was that group who determined the design and the look of the stations. Mr. Simonsen stated "that stamped bronzed metal was not an inexpensive material and said that he believed that there was a wealth of opportunity to do things with other materials that were not at a greater cost". Mr. Simonsen indicated that he believed the stations all had the same structural grid, and within those parameters, some unique character could be allowed. Mr. Johnson said that the canopy on the stations was a "unibody" canopy so the frame was the structure. There was further discussion regarding the issue of individually designed stations.

• Mr. Young said that the issue was like the "apple and the orange concept". He pointed out the difference of riding on the light rail train and recognizing an approaching station, because of its individuality, as opposed to walking to a station and knowing what street it was on and what to look for. Mr. Johnson said that UTA compares the light rail stations to the uniformity of UTA's bus stops. Mr. Johnson said that UTA believed that it was easier for patrons to have the stations uniform, to have the same elements, such as the ticket vending machines, in the same places. Mr. Young said that transit systems in other areas of the country have accommodated historic regulations and it should be the same here.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding such issues as the inter-local agreement and the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission regarding new construction in an historic district. Mr. Johnson said that there was nothing historic about all the new retail buildings that would surround the light rail station. The discussion continued.

• Mr. Simonsen said that there seemed to be some historical precedence for the canopy design that was used downtown. Mr. Knight said that it reflected the canopy on the Joseph Smith Building. Mr. Simonsen inquired, "Why are we using something that has a precedence for a different area of downtown? We either should be using something that picks up on something precedent and peculiar to this neighborhood, or we should be reflecting the modernization of the streetscape that now exists and not using something that has historical themes to it and that is inappropriate to this historic district."

Mr. Parvaz said he believed that there was no reason to change the design of each station. He said that there should be a design that would relate to all areas. He said that there should be more concentration on the environment. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the landscaping of the station platforms. Mr. Johnson said that all the platforms were landscaped unilaterally with trees in the center, perennial shrubbery on the ends, and a planter adjacent to the handicapped access. Mr. Johnson said that the work would start the end of June 2000, and said that there were provisions in the contract to complete construction before the Olympics. He added that if for some reason the construction was not completed, a moratorium would be declared and all construction would cease until after the Olympics.

• Ms. Rowland talked about the safety of passengers and inquired if there was any kind of barrier that would present people from jumping off the trains and running out onto the street. Mr. Johnson said that there were raised curbs for patrons to load and unload on, but no barriers. He added that there was a warning strip on the edge of the platforms.

• Ms. Mitchell expressed her concern about children who escape from their parents. Mr. Johnson said that the same precautions should be taken at any bus stop or roadway.

• Mr. Christensen inquired about an appeal's process if the Historic Landmark Commission denied this request. Ms. Giraud said that the case would be reviewed by Land Use Appeal's Board and not the City Council. Ms. Giraud suggested that Commission members write to the mayor and City Council recommending that the Historic Landmark Commission be involved with issues such as this at a much earlier date. She said that most of the light rail system was not in historic districts and that was not a factor.

Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:

• Matt Wolverton, Vice Chair of the Central City Community Council, stated that the plan, apparently, has been "set in stone" and a person's opinion is "basically mute at this point according to UTA". He read the letter submitted by the Chair and Vice Chair of the Central City Community Council regarding the design elements of the proposed station, a copy of which was attached to the staff report. He said the following, "I think it's unfortunate that we cannot look a little harder around that area and look for historic structures. They are there. The entire area has been piece-mealed, site by site, plot by plot, during the last twenty years. It is difficult to go up against a developer, to go up against one stake holder involved in this project. We have a voice here with the Historic Landmark Commission. I suggest that UTA look at the proposed master plan for this area, mixed use residential and commercial. Many of the buildings that now exist will not be there in several years, but the station would remain. I would expect that if this would be a community station, then people within the immediate community will be asked to input community art into this station."

Mr. Wolverton promoted the name of "Central City Station" for the station on 600 East Street. He said that he disagreed that individualizing the stations would cost more money and time. Mr. Wolverton recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission not make a decision at this meeting and continue the discussion. He said, "The inter-local agreement was again without community input and was made by the four stake holders in this project, the benefactors. Central City will be affected by this project." There was further discussion about re-naming the station.

Bonnie Mangold, an interested citizen, said that she wanted to reinforce some the views that Mr. Wolverton expressed. She said that there needed to be something more than the "generic cookie cutter look to our city". She stated that she believed that Salt Lake City is beginning to look like "any city" and that is very disturbing to her. She encouraged the Historic Landmark Commission to require an individual look to the station on 600 East Street.

Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

Mr. Simonsen referred to the comments made by Robert Glessner, a member of the Planning staff, in the minutes of the May 5, 1999 meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission, when the east-west light rail was first reviewed. He quoted Mr. Glessner by saying, " there would be a station at 400 South and 600 East, which would be in the Central City Historic District, that would have certain design features added to it. Mr. Glessner said that the Historic Landmark Commission would have a design review of the station platforms in historic districts". Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the statements made by Mr. Glessner had been bypassed. He added that "in light of what we have heard at this meeting and my own strong feelings, this station is not an appropriate answer to the Central City Historic District."

Motion:

Ms. Mitchell suggested that Mr. Simonsen make findings based on his motion, due to staff's recommendations. Mr. Simonsen stated the following: "First the prototype design has some historical significance but it is not the significance that pertains to this historic district. Second materials, although neutral do not reflect the materials that are common in this district and as the member of the community council pointed out, there are other materials that are more appropriate to this historic district, even though they are materials you would not see immediately around the location of the proposed station. I think there are materials that are used consistently throughout the historic district that would be more appropriate."

Ms. Mitchell said that she thought it was important to state that the design of these public places "will be with us for a long time" and that the art should be incorporated into the design of the station and hoped that the City would rethink its process for approval.

Mr. Simonsen agreed and said that architecture is a form of artistic expression. He said, "It's probably one of the earliest forms of artistic expression that exists. To separate art and architecture I think is a detriment to society " He added that he hoped there would be "room to explore that before all is said that done".

The discussion continued regarding the design and the name of the proposed station.

It was a unanimous decision by members of the Commission to re-open the meeting to make some further inquiries of the applicant. Mr. Gordon re-opened this portion of the meeting. Mr. Johnson said that a budget of $50,000 existed for the artwork which would provide the opportunity to make the station different that the other stations. He continued by saying that the cost of the canopy would be $100,000 and could not declare that the design of the canopy of the building materials would be changed. Mr. Johnson added that if the City wanted to provide more money towards the project, perhaps more changes could take place because UTA has a limited budget. He said that UTA's first goal is to provide the community a good a public transit service and everything else was is secondary.

Mr. Christensen inquired how the projects would be awarded. He noted that the people who live in Central City should have an input into the selection of the artist. Mr. Johnson said that Nancy Boskoff working with City's Arts Council would select the artists and they would try to involve the community as much as possible.

Mr. Gordon inquired if there would be a possibility of changing the design of the light rail stations in the future. Mr. Johnson said that there would be more opportunities for cities to be involved in the "development of the parcels and doing "something different in the future". Mr. Gordon reclosed this portion of the meeting.

Mr. Gordon talked about other transit systems in the country where the stations all looked the same. He said that it was difficult to "figure out where you were by trying to identify the stations". He said that it was easier to recognize landmark sites.

Mr. Parvaz talked about a recent demolition case where several homes are to be demolished on Vernier Court which is located in the Central City Historic District. He said that people in the community did not show up at the Historic Landmark Commission to protest the demolition of those historic buildings. Mr. Parvaz noted the community's interest in the design of the light rail station. Ms. Giraud reminded the Commission that the community council supported the demolition of those buildings. There was some further discussion regarding this matter.

Restated motion:

Mr. Simonsen moved that the design of the station, proposed for Case No. 014-00, be denied and ask UTA and the design/built team to look at options that would be more appropriate to the Central City Historic District. It was seconded by Mr. Littig. It was seconded by Mr. Littig. Mr. Littig, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Young were opposed. Mr. Payne was in a state of recusation. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Wilson were not present Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion failed.

A short discussion followed. New motion:

Mr. Young moved that the Historic Landmark Commission concur with the staff's findings of fact and approve Case No. 014-00, as proposed, and that the final station design be reviewed by staff. Any substantial changes to the design, as part of the design/build process, should return to the full Commission for further review. In addition, the design for the station's public art should include a component addressing the historic character of Central City, and that the proposed artwork should be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were opposed. Mr. Payne was in a state of recusation. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

After a short discussion regarding the name of the proposed station, a subsequent motion was made.

Subsequent motion:

Mr. Simonsen moved that as a subsequent motion for Case No. 014-00, the Historic Landmark Commission, as a body, make a formal recommendation for a name change for the light rail station in the Central City Historic District, and strongly encourage the City to include the Central City Community Council and the historic district for recommendations for a name that would be more appropriate than the name of "Trolley Square" which already have been given to the central city station. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Payne was in a state of recusation. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 015-00, at 200 North Main Street, by Philip G. McCarthey, represented by Gary Evershed with Lowell Construction Company, and Garr Campbell with P.P.A. Landscape Architect/Design Consultant, requesting approval to re-landscape the grounds of the "Alfred and Elizabeth McCune Mansion" located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Mr. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the McCune mansion was design by a local architect, S.C. Dallas, and constructed in 1901. Ms. Giraud noted that the mansion was not only in the Capitol Hill Historic District but was listed individually on the Salt Lake City List of Cultural Resources. She pointed out the Mr. Phil McCarthy, a local resident, recently purchased the house and planned to use it for a reception center.

Ms. Giraud stated that the immediate proposed plans for landscape changes would involve removing a parking lot that was constructed on the south side of the mansion in 1978 with a circular entry court to accommodate valet parking. She added that the applicant was proposing to extend a drive around the historic porte-cochere to the west side of the mansion for delivery access, which would replace an existing drive and access.

Ms. Giraud said that the applicant was also proposing to replace the existing lawn on the corner of 200 North and Main Street with three parterres of flowers that would be used for planting, only, and would not be accessible for walking, as originally presented to staff. She reported that Messrs. Campbell and Evershed had also presented plans to staff that involved re-landscaping the area east of the mansion and using an existing frame cottage as restrooms and as a dressing room for bridal parties. Mr. Giraud pointed out that because these plans would involve a separate parcel, the applicant must pursue planned development and conditional use approval from the Planning Commission. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission would not be expected to make a finding on the east landscaping proposals until the applicant was further along in the planned development and conditional use process.

Mr. Girard referred to Section 21A.34.01O(G)(1 through 12), of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, and A Guide to Landscape Design in Salt Lake City's Historic Districts by Jennifer Wood Harrington.

She stated that staff found that only the following standards from the ordinance would apply to this proposal:

G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or 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:

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;

3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed;

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

9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;

Staffs discussion of the parterres: The McCune mansion has historically had an uninterrupted lawn that sweeps from the porte-cochere to the corner of 200 North and Main Streets. The siting of the house at the top of a steep slope, the sandstone retaining wall, and the intermediate space between the house and wall are significant character-defining features of the house. Staff, along with the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) staff, Barbara Murphy and Charles Shepherd, determined that the original proposal of using parterres that visitors could use for walking, and interspersing these walkable areas with plantings, would significantly alter the original siting of the house.

The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City also addresses the issue of parterres, or terraces in the chapter on historic site features. Page 56 states: "In some areas, steep topography dictated that building sites be sloped. Portions of the Capitol Hill Historic District are examples. Yards typically incline steeply in this location, reflecting the original topography. This historic grading pattern is an important characteristic that should be preserved.

"Modifying this historic slope as it is seen from the street, can negatively affect the historic character of an individual site and its context. For example, excavating a hillside to create a flat building site, or cutting it into a series of stepped terraces would detract from the historic character "

Jennifer Harrington pointed out that her Utah State University thesis regarding landscaping in the Avenues of Salt Lake City does not address the specific issue of terracing or building parterres. She pointed out that during the Victorian Age, which she identified as lasting from 1870 to 1906, "The front yard became a stage for the presentation of the house. It was intended to be on display to the public and was planned for its image and effect. The front yard was on exhibit to the street and it was maintained purely for its looks." (Pp. 56-50).

Ms. Harrington also discussed the change in individual streetscape elements from the pioneer period {1847-1869) to the Victorian Age, such as retaining walls and the presentation of homes on 'platforms.' She wrote, "The entrance to the front walk was nearly always emphasized in some way. The use of pillars, change in the cap design, curving inward, and change in height were all common ways of giving emphasis to the front walk." (P. 46)".

The above paragraph described several elements, besides the grassy slope, that characterize the siting of the mansion.

Staff's discussion of the south entry court and drive: The proposed circular entry court south of the house and the proposed drive on the west side of the mansion replaced non-historic features that were constructed in the 1970's. Staff did not locate photographs that portrayed the historic landscaping or site features for this area of the property. Although the circular entry court is a conjectural feature, staff believed it would be an improvement over the

existing parking lot. The drive would lessen the amount of paved surface on the property. Both features would fill a utilitarian function that would be necessary for the commercial use of the mansion.

Staff's analysis: The foreground of the McCune mansion is characterized by features both architectural (the brick pillars, sandstone wall, and wide stairs with a prominent wall) and plantings {grass). Planting flowers beds as parterres would interrupt the historic relationship between an elaborate residence and the simplicity of the landscape. On the other hand, if the planting can be changed without significant cuts in the hillside, it should be remembered that landscaping is reversible and would not physically affect any permanent, architectural features. The Historic Landmark Commission must determine if the grassy slope is a character-defining feature and to what extent it could be altered without jeopardizing the historic integrity of the property.

Staff has no issue with the proposed circular entry court or the alteration of the existing pad and drive on the west side of the house. These parts of the lot have already been altered, and the new design would reclaim more of the ground for landscaping.

Staff's findings of fact:

1. Staff finds that the slope of the front lawn is a character-defining feature. Altering it by creating parterres that deeply cut into the slope would not be in keeping with Section 21A.34.020(G)(2) of the ordinance. However, if new flower beds were created that did not make deep cuts into the slope, the landscaping would be a reversible change should a future owner decide to revert back to the simple grass slope.

The circular entry and drive are replacing a non-historic alteration, and would not affect character-defining features. The applicant meets the provisions of 21A.34.020{G)(2) for this part of the proposal.

2. Historic photographs do not indicate that the grassy slope was ever landscaped. One photograph portrayed curve beds that flanked the stairs, but the small portion of the sign, at the left of the stairs advertising the mansion as a reception center, indicated that the photograph was not taken in the historic period. It is not that the applicant is seeking to create a false sense of history, but rather that a change is proposed that does not have a historical basis. Staff finds that the proposed parterres do not meet Section 21A.34.020(G)(3).

3. Staff finds that the lawn is a distinctive feature of the property. It is not an architectural feature, but its simplicity would contrast with the elaborate quality of the house. Staff finds that the application for the parterres does not meet the provisions of Section 21A.34.020(G)(5).

4. Section 21A.34.020(G)(9) addresses the reversibility of alterations. Although it is doubtful that the proposed parterres in the front yard would be reversed, landscaping is very reversible. The applicant meets this standard.

Ms. Giraud stated that the ordinance does not specifically address landscaping. I think there might be room for discussion. She said that Mr. Campbell has been willing to consider other ideas and look at other options.

Mr. Parvaz wanted to know if the Commission would have the opportunity of reviewing the proposed plantings for the parterres, since the slope was a character-defining feature of the property. He said that he was concerned the applicant would plant large trees on either side of the stairway. Also, Mr. Payne asked if the applicant decided to "xeriscape" the area around the McCune mansion, would that be an issue for the Commission to address. Ms. Giraud said that the type of plantings would not ordinarily be within the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission but believed they would be in this proposal.

There was some discussion regarding the encroachment of the proposal circular drive for valet parking and the City's parking issues, and the fact that the mansion's use as a reception center would not be changing.

Mr. Young pointed out that staff made findings but no recommendations. Ms. Giraud said the staff did not have a recommendation at this time, but indicated that staff had no problem with an approval of the access drive from Second North and the adjacent circular driveway, but she did not recommend approval of the design for the front yard as originally submitted.

Mr. Philip McCarthey, the applicant, as well as his representatives, Mr. Gary Evershed and Mr. Garr Campbell, were present. Mr. McCarthey stated that he had in his possession a description of the McCune mansion from a July 1907, architectural record. He read the following: " but the master pieces of design and craftsmanship still remain for the most part intact and they are monuments to Mr. Dallas and his creative tutor. With these considerations, the place was considered, as a whole, the approaches, the driveway, terraces, lawn, flower gardens, and shrubbery were close related parts of the whole theme."

Mr. McCarthey said that with the restoration of the mansion, he could envision a place that people for generations could continue to observe the magnificent work that went into this building. He said that there was no other building like this mansion anywhere else in the city and possibility in the mountain west. Mr. McCarthey said that it was his intention that the McCune mansion would always stay in the McCarthey family.

Mr. Evershed presented an overview of the long-range goals for the entire restoration project of the McCune mansion. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the portion of the project that was being proposed at this meeting.

Mr. Evershed said that the parterres of flowers would provide a "magnificent view" of the McCune mansion. He said that the flowers and shrubbery in the beds would be changed to match the season of the year.

Mr. Evershed described how deliveries for banquets and weddings, handicap access, and other entities would be managed. He also said that cast sandstone would be used for the new retaining wall would be very similar to the original. Mr. Evershed said that he was sorry that the original carriage house had been demolished many years before.

Mr. Garr Campbell stated that the applicant was not trying to recreate an historic garden, but likened it to gardens very popular in New York, Boston, and Rhode Island of creating a garden feeling of rooms, corridors, and entries. He gave examples of the gardens in England. Mr. Campbell talked about the "geometrical proportions of the mansion" and the applicant's desire to create "beautiful, proportionate, geometrical gardens" to enhance the mansion. Mr. Campbell said that the landscaping would include pools of water, groups of sycamore trees, peach trees, other small trees, shrubbery, flowers, and pools of water.

Mr. Campbell referred to the elaborate gardens found in downtown especially on and around Temple Square. He said that the mansion would be in view from these locations. Mr. Campbell said he maintained that the parterres were essential to support this mansion in the context of downtown Salt Lake City. He stated that "lawn is a very sad expression of landscape, its dry most of the year, it looks unkept, it's hard to water because of the slope, and hard to mow". Mr. Campbell added that if the parterres are added now, it would become part of the historical record of this mansion. He said, "We have a photograph in the 1940's or 1950's that shows where the hill was disturbed and planted. This seems to be an evolutionary thing that comes and goes. All we are trying to do is to give the building a lovely place setting so it doesn't look so hard when you are down on Main Street looking up at this place."

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Mr. Young led the discussion by saying that some of the alterations that were being proposed, such as the retaining walls, would not be reversible. He also expressed his concern that the applicant would add gazebos and lights in the garden area. Mr. Young asked about the caliper of the proposed trees. He stated that he would not want the mansion to become obscured by the height or the groupings of the trees.

• Ms. Mitchell inquired where the valets would park the cars. Mr. Evershed said that parking would be on the north side of the property (the former site of the carriage house), and at the Capitol Building lots. Ms. Mitchell inquired if one would be able to walk where the parterres of flowers would be or would they be for viewing only. Mr. Campbell said that on the modified plan, there would be no walkways.

• Mr. Littig raised the question about the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Campbell talked about the development of the entry courtyard. He said that the existing wall is quite high and the plans for the new retaining wall would be about eight feet tall. Mr. Campbell explained how there would be a shorter wall below the retaining wall where sycamore trees would be planted as a barrier around the base of the wall.

• Mr. Parvaz inquired how the parterres would work on the slope. Mr. Campbell noted the existing line of the slope on the drawing that accompanied the staff report. He described the planting curve between the flowerbeds, how the plantings would be placed on either side of the main stairway, the development of the entry courtyard, and the hedge that would obscure the front porch. Mr. Parvaz wanted to know how tall the sycamore trees would be. Mr. Campbell said that they would be about 12 feet tall. When Mr. Parvaz inquired about the height of the driveway entrance, Mr. Campbell said that it would be at street grade level, then described how the vehicles would enter and exit after dropping passengers off to go into the building.

• Mr. Simonsen asked about the paving materials for the drive. Mr. Campbell said that the paving material had not been determined but believed it would be some sort of concrete.

• Mr. Christensen asked how substantial would the concrete dividers be that would form the borders of the flower beds. Mr. Campbell said that had not been determined yet. Mr. Christensen inquired if the borders would be red sandstone. Mr. Campbell said that they would not be sandstone.

Mr. Evershed concluded by saying "how lucky we are to have somebody like Phil who is doing an unbelievable job of restoration. We are all very lucky recipients of Phil's vision." He added that no approach would be taken that would not enhance this "magnificent" historic structure.

Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:

• Ms. Pat Holcombe, who resides at 35 East 200 North, said that she shared a driveway with the mansion property and was concerned about the renovation of the eastern portion of the property because her home is on the adjacent property. Mr. Campbell explained what would be proposed on that side of the property. Ms. Holcombe was assured by staff that she would receive a public meeting notice when the remaining segment of the proposal would be reviewed.

• Ms. Katherine Gardner, who resides at 606 No. DeSoto Street, stated that this property "is the ultimate, gorgeous, joy forever in our area so we are thrilled with the proposal". She told the Commission that the renovation and landscaping plans had not been reviewed by the Capitol Hill Community Council, so she said that she could not speak for the entire community council in her position of chair, only for herself. She added that the applicant was scheduled for the June 21, 2000 meeting.

Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

A lengthy discussion took place. Several members of the Historic Landmark Commission expressed his/her concerns regarding the following issues: 1) the grassy slope being an historic part of the property; 2) cutting the historic stairway wall; 3) the parterres being behind the large caliper trees; 4) the parterres preventing an open view of the house; 5) the height of the proposed retaining wall; 6) people jumping the walls to the parterres; and 7) the reversibility of landscaping.

Motion:

Mr. Young moved to approve Case No. 015-00 as presented, based on the staff's findings of facts. It was seconded by Mr. Payne. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 016-00, at 610 East South Temple, by Philip G. McCarthey, represented by Max J. Smith of Max J. Smith Architects, requesting approval to construct a circular driveway in the front yard of the "Matthew and Angeline Walker Mansion" located in the South Temple Historic District.

Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the applicant was requesting approval to construct a circular driveway in the front yard of the Walker mansion. He said that the building had been used as offices for the past several years and the building would again be used for offices after the renovation was completed. Mr. Knight said that the proposed driveway was part of an extensive renovation project of the house and grounds.

Mr. Knight reported that the house was built between 1904 and 1905 and gave a brief history of the property. He said that the house went through a number of tenants before being renovated for offices in the 1970's. Mr. Knight stated that at that time, a large parking garage was added to the rear of the house, along with an addition to the west side. He said that most of the work by the applicant has been to the interior of the house, which is not within the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Knight pointed out that the floor and decorative cornice were recently rebuilt and skylights were added to the south and east roof slopes of the house. He added that the front stairway was also being restored to its original design. Mr. Knight said that both projects were reviewed by staff and approved administratively.

Mr. Knight stated that staff chose to send this proposal to the full Commission because the work was beyond the scope of projects eligible for administrative review. He said that the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance allows circular driveways in the front yard as a "special exception", requiring approval by the Board of Adjustment. He added that driveways are limited to twelve feet in width and must be set back fifteen feet from the street.

Mr. Knight proceeded through Section 21A.34.020(G) of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, which was included in the staff report.

Section 21A.34.020(G) H Historic Preservation Overlay District:

G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the historic landmark commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the city:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

Staffs discussion and findings of fact: The property will remain in its current office use.

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.

Staffs discussion and findings of fact: The existing landscaping was installed in the early 1980s, when the building was last renovated. The planters, steps, and retaining walls that are proposed to be removed all date from this time, and as such are not considered character-defining historic features.

Staffs discussion and findings of fact: The design of the proposed driveway is similar to the historic sidewalk configuration, as shown in the historic photos included with this staff report. The new work will be distinguished from the old by the use of a contemporary paving material. The application complies with this standard.

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

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: The existing landscaping dates from the early 1980s. It does not add any historic or architectural significance to the building.

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

Staffs discussion and findings of fact: This standard is not applicable to this application.

6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects.

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: The historic circular front walk seems to have been replaced in the early 1980s when the house was last renovated. The proposed design would replace the current walk and plantings with a design that echoes the historic design. As shown on historic photos, the original walk was concrete, and the applicant proposes to use a darker colored, asphalt paver manufactured by Hanover Architectural Products for the driveway. The applicant feels that a darker color would be more subdued than gray concrete, and would blend into the landscape. A contrasting color could be used in the sidewalk area and in the circle once occupied by plantings, in order to further echo the historic design of the walkway.

The size of the proposed circle roughly mimics the historic walkway design, with the addition of the driveways connecting the circle with South Temple and 600 East. The driveway layout and location of the curb cuts are also governed by traffic regulations that require that a curb cut be a minimum distance from an intersection and other curb cuts. City zoning also requires that a circular driveway should be set back at least fifteen feet from the property line and should be no more than twelve feet in width.

Circular driveways in the front were not a common feature on the mansions lining South Temple. The steep topography of the north side of the street precluded driveways in the front yard in many locations. Most houses, like the Walker Mansions, had a porte-cochere to the side of the building; often these were reached by a circular drive. Good examples of this are at the Kearns Mansion (now the Governor's Mansion, 603 E. South Temple), the Enos Wall Mansion (now LOS Business College, 411 E. South Temple) and the Keith-Brown Mansion (529 South Temple). Many houses also had carriage stones located at the South Temple curb. Circular drives in the front yard were built, however, at the Devereaux House (360 W. South Temple) and the Henry McMillan House (649 E. South Temple, demolished 1966, and now the site of the Fred A. Moreton Insurance building).

The proposed design uses the historic sidewalk design as an antecedent, as shown on the historic photos attached to the staff report. The proposed materials do not match the historic material but would lessen the visual impact of the driveway upon the streetscape. The application complies with this standard.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible;

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: This standard is not applicable to this case.

8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.

Staffs discussion and findings of fact: This standard is not applicable to this case.

9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

Staffs discussion and findings of fact: The driveway could be removed at some time in the future with little effect on the historic nature of the building.

10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following: a. vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material; and b. any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials;

Staffs discussion and findings of fact: No prohibited materials are proposed.

11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H historic preservation overlay district, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs.

Staffs discussion and findings of fact: Signage for the Walker House is not included as part of the application. Any signage would be addressed in a separate application.

Mr. Knight stated that staff recommended approval of the project, based on the following provisions:

1. The driveway shall not be used for parking and will be for loading/unloading only;

2. A sense of the historic circular sidewalk pattern should be maintained through the use of a contrasting paving material and pattern;

3. The width of the driveway shall not exceed twelve feet; and

4. Approval from the Historic Landmark Commission is subject to approval of a special exception for a circular driveway by the Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Knight said that there seemed to be a difference in the plans for the circular planter wall in front of the front steps, that were being restored, and suggested asking the applicant which plan was correct. A short discussion took place clarifying other issues that were included in the current proposal.

Mr. Max Smith, representing the applicant, was present. He apologized in behalf of Mr. McCarthey for having to leave for another appointment. Mr. Smith explained that the proposal at this meeting was the first of many steps that would be taken in the renovation project. He pointed out that the cost of the renovation project would be enormous.

Mr. Smith described the project in the following manner: 1) the parking for the structure has been encumbered by a joint use of the parking structure to the south "which we all acknowledge as awful". He added that for the time being, it was critical that the parking structure remained; 2) the "L" shaped addition to the west and to the south would remain. The purpose of that would be to defray some of the expenses by providing an income by leasing the space as offices. However, the usage of the building would be significantly decreased from what it had been in the past; 3) the entire second floor would comprise Mr. McCarthey's office; 4) the newly restored attic would have some tenant space; 5) the library and parlor on the main floor, which were destroyed, will be restored; 6) the kitchen, that was once removed, will be restored; 7) the dining room will be restored to its original condition. The applicant has photographic evidence to support the restoration; and 8) the restoration of the horseshoe shaped front stairway.

Mr. Smith pointed out that the main level of the building, after restoration, would not be used for office space. He added that the main level would be made available to non profit organizations, such as the Utah Heritage Foundation, where they could hold functions at no cost. He further said that the facility would also be available for historic tours on a six-day a week basis.

Mr. Smith addressed the proposed circular driveway in the front yard by saying that "real power of this facility was the experience of coming through the front door." He talked about the magnificent skylight in the front foyer. He described how a valet would park the car after passengers were brought to the front entrance. Mr. Smith said that the applicant's intent was to construct retaining walls no higher than the plane of the grass.

The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:

• Mr. Young led the discussion by asking how much of the paving material would be viewable from South Temple. Mr. Smith believed there would be very little. He said that was one of the reasons why the applicant selected a darker-colored paving material to "de-emphasize" the driveway.

• Mr. Littig inquired about the curb cut onto South Temple. Mr. Smith said the drive would be one-way and that a vehicle would access the circular drive from 600 East and exit onto South Temple at the same location as the existing driveway. Mr. Smith also said that the driveway would not be accessible to delivery vehicles.

• Mr. Simonsen raised the question of two-way traffic on the existing driveways. Mr. Smith said that there would be two-way traffic. Mr. Simonsen discussed the design of the circular driveway and made some suggestions for refinement.

• Ms. Mitchell inquired if an automobile could turn around in the circular driveway. Mr. Smith said that an automobile could not turn around. A short discussion followed.

• Mr. Young asked what kind of signage would be proposed at the driveway entrance and exit. Mr. Smith said that it would be like the "one way" signage at the David Keith mansion.

There was some additional discussion regarding the driveway pattern, the approval that must be obtained from the Board of Adjustment, and other related matters

Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

There was no further discussion. Motion:

Mr. Simonsen inquired if the proposal should return to the full Commission once the paving materials were selected. After a short discussion, Mr. Young amended the motion.

Amended motion:

Mr. Young moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve Case No. 016-00 with the following provisions: 1) that the driveway shall not be used for parking and will be used for loading and unloading only; 2) a sense of the historic circular sidewalk pattern should be maintained through the use of a contrasting paving material and pattern; 3) the width of the driveway shall not exceed twelve feet; and 4) approval from the Historic Landmark Commission is subject to approval of a special exception for a circular driveway by the Board of Adjustment. Further, that the paving material should be reviewed by staff and administratively approved. The second still stood by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Adoption of new policies regarding administrative approvals.

Ms. Giraud announced that this discussion would be postponed until the June 21, 2000 Historic Landmark Commission meeting.

• Discussion concerning the Planning Commission's request to analyze conditional uses in Landmark Sites for buildings that are too small or too fragile to satisfy the existing conditional use options outlines in Section 21A.24.010(S) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as per the request of Maren Jeppsen.

Mr. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact. and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She introduced Ms. Jeppsen and Ms. Nedra Crow, who are joint owners of the "Wilford Woodruff Farmhouse". Ms. Giraud passed around a box that contained several artifacts which had been excavated from the back yard of the house. Historic photographs were circulated to the members of the Commission.

Ms. Giraud said that for many years, Salt Lake City has allowed properties listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources located in residential zones to be used for commercial purposes if it resulted in the preservation of a significant structure. She said that the intent was to loosen the zoning code so that significant structures that do not seem feasible for permitted uses would not be demolished. Ms. Giraud added that the allowed uses could be expanded as part of a conditional use process, if the property was significant enough to be listed locally (not just on the National Register of Historic Places), and if the commercial use would not adversely affect the neighborhood.

Ms. Giraud stated that recently it had come to the attention of the Planning Division that the existing conditional use provisions seem to exclude small and fragile properties that are very significant. She noted that the existing ordinance thus does not encourage the preservation of the very properties it was intended to protect.

Ms. Giraud reported on the current zoning requirements and provisions for conditional uses, included in the staff report. She stated that the Planning Division recommended that disbursement be handled as part of the conditional use process because a mandatory requirement could eliminate opportunities for landmark sites that happened to be in close proximity to each other.

Ms. Giraud said that the Planning Division also recommended that conditional uses for historic buildings be allowed under three circumstances: 1) Probable demolition of the landmark site; 2) Economic hardship as provided in Part Ill, Chapter 21.A.34.020(K); and 3) Excessive size of the landmark site for residential uses allowed in the residential district.

Ms. Giraud pointed out that Ms. Jeppsen and Ms. Crow purchased the farmhouse in 1993, with the intent of restoring it. She added that as they investigated the history of Wilford Woodruff and his use of the farmhouse, they became increasingly interested in the house as a material artifact. Ms. Giraud said that many school, religious, and history groups have been invited to tour the house and the explanation of its role in the city's history.

Ms. Giraud said that the owners received an estimated cost of $250,000 to restore the house and they believe that is beyond their financial means and are searching for a solution that would allow them to restore the house, and allow public access to it in order to continue using it for educational purposes. They do not want to restore the house as an office or a reception center, as they believe that these adaptive reuses options would be too intensive and disruptive to both the integrity of the house and the residential character of the neighborhood. Instead Ms. Jeppsen and Ms. Crow would like to rent the house on a limited basis as a bed and breakfast to one party. The current conditional use ordinance requires that the owner has to live in the house in order to operate it for this use, and they feel that this requirement would compromise the integrity of restoring the home and of using the property as an educational resource.

Ms. Giraud said that a house like this house "in the purest sense" of why we have a conditional use ordinance is to save very significant homes like this and have them restored. However, in this instance it has "fallen through the cracks" because of this. am a little concerned of their interested if they cannot that they no longer afford to keep the house and pursue this.

Ms. Giraud presented a brief history and the significance of Wilford Woodruff and the farmhouse to the history of Salt Lake City. She said that the farmhouse was associated with a noteworthy figure in Mormon and Utah history. It also is an example of early, vernacular Utah architecture and is the earliest remaining structure of a grouping of buildings that marks the progression of the city's history from an isolated colony to assimilation into the mainstream of American culture.

Ms. Giraud stated that the Planning Staff discussed various options which included adding a provision to Section 1A.24.010.(S)(2)(a) that would allow buildings that are small and potentially too fragile to accommodate office or reception uses or ongoing owner residency for bed and breakfasts, or change the definition of bed and breakfasts, so the owner would not have to live in the house. However, this suggestion has only been part of a staff discussion, and the staff is most interested in soliciting suggestions and comments from the Historic Landmark Commission, neighborhood groups, and other interested parties.

The following issues were discussed by members of the Commission regarding conditional uses in Landmark Sites for buildings that are too small or too fragile to satisfy the existing conditional use options:

Restoring historic houses that are too small or too fragile: The interior restoration should be part of the rationale for a special renovation. The interior restoration should be "purer" than a restoration geared for commercial use. The structural condition of the house would have to be assessed. Seismic conditions and building codes would have to be met.

Availability of financing for the restoration project: There are funds available from several foundations to help defer the cost of renovation; some matching funds as well. Locally, there is the Utah Heritage Foundation, the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for tax credits, as well as others. Several foundations have web sites on the internet. Obtaining loans may be more difficult if the conditional use permit includes some "funky" parameters.

Using the house as offices or a bed and breakfast: Currently, a conditional use granted for offices or for a bed and breakfast, by definition, has to be owner/occupied in Salt Lake City. Take that requirement out of the definition of a bed and breakfast. If the ordinance is changed, it would have to be specific to include only landmark sites, and not just houses located in historic districts. The house would have to be significant in order for it to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the SLC Register, so that would be a safeguard. Some examples of how some houses have been wrongly used were given. Nationwide, bed and breakfasts require an owner or a manger on site at all times. This might not be an essential requirement. The bed and breakfast might not have to include the entire house. Where the house is small, the possibility of building an addition onto the house, constructing another building on the property, or restoring a garage or another outbuilding on the property where a manager could reside to meet the onsite requirement. Change the requirement so that the owner/manager would not have to reside onsite but would have to reside close by. Developing the possibility of a family bed and breakfast where the entire house would be used. Consider a non-profit guest house.

Temporary or transitional housing: There are zoning restrictions in residential areas that do not allow renting out bedrooms on a nightly basis. The Wilford Woodruff Farmhouse only has two bedrooms, which would not be profitable for the applicants, even if it was allowed. In some places in Salt Lake County, housing can be rented on a temporary basis for skiers.

Finding another use for an historic house, other than for offices of bed and breakfasts: Grant a special exception in certain situations, such as for a museum use. In some areas of the country, historic houses are used as museums, on a non-profit basis. Non-profit could be defined as the owner breaking even. The possibility of providing Olympic housing, on a temporary basis, or for some other national event.

In conclusion, Ms. Giraud said that many neighborhoods are concerned about commercial encroachment. She stated that the purpose of a conditional use is to help and preserve an historic building. Ms. Giraud said that a house as significant as the Wilford Woodruff Farmhouse could "fall through the cracks" by not meeting the conditional use requirements. She pointed out that there is not an abundance of early vernacular homes remaining in Salt Lake City and she would like to save it for the best possible use.

Both Ms. Jeppsen and Ms. Crow thanked the Commission and staff for allowing this subject matter to be discussed at this meeting and for all the suggestions and comments that were made.

Adjournment of the meeting.

As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 8:30P.M.