SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
Minutes of the Meeting Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Peter Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, and Amy Rowland. David Fitzsimmons, Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Mickelsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the site that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Ms. Mickelsen 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. There were no public comments to the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes of the February 18, 2004 meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Parvaz unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Chairperson, and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
(Ms. Rowland arrived at 4:08 P.M.)
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze said that he touched base with the Chair about a month ago regarding the need to have a retreat so there would be time to discuss issues of concern and perhaps direction with respect to preservation as a whole. He pointed out that he has opportunities to discuss planning and preservation issues with the Mayor and the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council. Mr. Zunguze stated that he wanted to give the members an opportunity to share concerns or thoughts that the Commission may have as a group with respect to preservation, either from a standpoint of strengthening it or new policy issues in the City. Also, he said that he wanted to give some time to the Commission and the Staff to discuss any operational issues that needed to be tweaked without being encumbered by the review of projects at formal meetings such as this. Mr. Zunguze said that Mr. Simonsen believed that it would be a good idea to bring it to the Commission to get the members' thoughts regarding a retreat.
Ms. Heid inquired if Mr. Zunguze had some idea if he wanted the retreat to last a whole day, half day, or just a few hours. Mr. Zunguze stated that it could begin with half a day or it could be just a few hours over lunch. He added that it depended on the issues the Commission would like to address. Mr. Zunguze noted that the Planning Commission has had retreats that only lasted for a few hours to two half-day retreats. He said that it could be a two-hour session and the next time could be increased if it would be necessary. Mr. Zunguze indicated that he just wanted to touch base with the Commissioners about issues that "we care about". Mr. Parvaz asked if a retreat would be held on a yearly basis. Mr. Zunguze said that it would.
Ms. Mickelsen suggested that a two-hour session on a yearly basis would not be enough time for issues considering that Commission just spent two two-hour sessions on the Rules of Procedure. Mr. Ashdown stated that he assumed it would be more of a brainstorming session.
There was some discussion when the best time would be for a retreat. It was decided that the Planning Director along with Staff would select a few dates and report back to the Commission.
Mr. Zunguze referred to Page Five of the minutes of February 18, 2004. The section stated the following: Mr. Parvaz said he noticed that "Planning Staff' or "Planner" is mentioned rather than "Preservation Planning Staff'. He suggested including a definition of the role and function of Planning Staff or Planner in this section.
Ms. Giraud said that the organization of the Planning Division is being changed. She pointed out that the Planning Director believes that the planners are becoming "too specialized". Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission will be reviewing staff reports from other Planners on the staff and the Preservation Planners will be doing more things with the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment. When Mr. Ashdown asked if the Planning Division would be completely reorganized, Ms. Giraud said that the Planners would be reorganized. She said that Mr. Zunguze plans to take this proposal to the Community Council Chairs, to the City Council, and to the Mayor to be implemented. Mr. Simonsen said that he was concerned whether or not the Historic Landmark Commission would get the same level of expertise. He also thought it would be a good idea to include Mr. Parvaz's suggestion.
Mr. Zunguze said that he thought he missed a portion of the discussion that took place regarding the effort the Planning Office is undertaking to reorganize the work within the Division. He said, 'What I read did not sit well with me. I thought it was an incomplete explanation of why we are doing it. The impression I got from reading the minutes was that the Commission felt uncomfortable and that perhaps the reorganization might have a detrimental impact or effect on the operation of the Historic Landmark Commission. That is the feeling I got when I read the minutes and if that is not the case, I apologize for getting that impression." Mr. Zunguze said that he felt like the full explanation was not articulated in a manner where the Commission could understand why the office needed some "tweaking" and "changing". Mr. Zunguze said that he wanted to take the opportunity to explain why the reorganization was taking place and the affect he believed it would have on everyone concerned.
Mr. Zunguze stated the four primary reasons why he believed the reorganization plan should be implemented:
1. The hallmarks of a good organization are evidenced by how it handles both its routine work load and issues of a crisis nature. The Planning Office lacks flexibility in dealing with a crisis or issues of immediacy in the City. Currently, Planners are assigned to particular community council areas. As the result of that, the knowledge base is not well shared within the Division on a City-wide basis. There are Planners who know more about certain sections of the City, and little about the rest of the City. The Director's ability to assign tasks as they arise is therefore limited to finding that individual who knows about that particular area of the City, and if that person is not there, the Division's ability to address the issues is short changed. The Planning Division cannot be run in that fashion and be expected to be efficient. The Planners have to have some knowledge base that is City-wide and about the Division's operations, as much as possible. So the issue is not that the Planners are or becoming "too specialized", the Planners are already specialized. There are Planners who are specialized in preservation issues, for instance, however those Planners need to know about other aspects of the Division's work and about the City, so when help is needed they would be able to render that help.
2. There are some Planners who are pretty much "pigeon-holed" into doing the same things all the time every day. They do not have the ability to grow and be challenged professionally. The ability to be exposed to other issues within the City has the potential to spark an interest and growth in the talents of Planners. The Director's ability to rely on a complete talent pool of thought is currently limited. The Planners are missing an opportunity to broaden their horizon as to the operations of the Division and what the City is all about. From an operational standpoint, they cannot put their areas of specialization into a proper context if they are not exposed to the City as a whole. The Director wants the Planners to be exposed to other aspects of the Division's operation, so they can put what they do from a specialized standpoint into context. The Director believes that in doing this, the City will ultimately create better and more motivated planners.
3. There is also a need to more equitably share the workload within the Division.
Again, going back to the fact that Planners have been based on the community council system, there are some community councils that are more active than others. As a result, some Planners end up participating in more night meetings than others and that creates disparity in the Planners' work. Some planners might participate in meetings up to as many as four nights a week and others participate in one-night meeting in six months. That burden is not being shared fairly and the Director has the responsibility to make sure that the entire workforce is a "happy group". The Director believes that something needs to be done about that imbalance.
4. Customer service is the most important concern to the Director. Again, going back to the notion that if the Planner at hand is on vacation, the community council would call his/her telephone number and leave a message. That Planner could be away for a week or more. The Planning Director or the Manager would not know until an issue becomes a crisis, then their ability to act effectively might be gone. With the change, the Supervisors (Managers) would be the point of contact for the community councils, and the Supervisors would have a talented crew of Planners to address any issue. The other component of implementation is what is called the "Planner-of-the-Day" and the "Manager-of-the-Day" who are assigned on a rotating basis. The result is that at any given time in a day the Division's customers would be able to speak to a live person rather than being sent to voice mail. If the Planner-of-the-Day needs additional help, the Manager-of-the-Day would back him/her up to solve that particular problem. The Planners would be in a position to have the ability to act immediately. The Director believes that through these changes, the Planners would be provided with a better environment for professional growth where they could exercise their full talents, be able to share the workload, and provide better customer service to the community.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he did not believe that the Historic Landmark Commission, the Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, or the Housing Advisory or Appeals Board should have any disruption of service. He asked if the Commissioners had any questions.
Mr. Parvaz stated that he raised the issue at that meeting to clarify the definition of "Planner" or "Planning Staff' because it was a concern to him. He said that the beginning of that section in the Rules of Procedure there was an explanation of other positions for the Commission and he believed that there should be a complete explanation on all the positions. Mr. Parvaz said that was when Ms. Giraud explained the reorganization within the Planning Division. He said that Staff did the "heaviest" part of the work for the Commission so he did not feel there would be much difference. Mr. Zunguze said that he did not want to have the sense that the reorganization was detrimental to the members' ability to continue their effectiveness on the Commission.
Ms. Mickelsen clarified by saying that different people would be providing the same kind of service to the Commission. Mr. Zunguze said that there could be different Planners providing needed service and expertise to the issues at hand.
Mr. Wheelwright said that in contemplating how the Division might make this change one of the things that was important was that the management responsibility of the end product (the staff report) would not be changed. He indicated that although Mr. Knight might be called to provide the staff report on a Board of Adjustment or Planning Commission item, it would still be the management team member responsible for that program area who would still review that staff report before it would be released. Mr. Wheelwright pointed out, as Mr. Zunguze said, the opportunity for Planners to broaden their expertise and all which comes from that. He noted that the Division would also be ensuring that any procedural due process or past practices would not be compromised because the system would still have management control responsibility for that end product. Mr. Wheelwright stated that it would become an "on the job training" opportunity to the person who is moving into a new area of expertise.
Ms. Rowland inquired if the Manager of the Historic Landmark Commission, with a more general planning background, would still have the same expertise in historic preservation. Mr. Zunguze stated that Ms. Giraud would remain the Manager who has the expertise in historic preservation. Ms. Rowland expressed her concern that the members rely on the memory of the Staff to keep the Commission consistent with the decision-making process. She added that it might be a "little scary" to have a rotating group that would not have that background history. Mr. Zunguze said that the Division's Management Team is mindful of that issue not only for the Historic Landmark Commission but for the other boards, as well. He said that the reorganization planning has been in progress for nine months. Mr. Zunguze said that he was well aware that there might be some trials and tribulations but he believed the overall assessment was that the current system was not efficient in handling both the volume and nature of issues faced by the Division.
Mr. Zunguze again said that all he wanted to do was to make certain that the Commission did not have the impression of getting setback with the planned changes. He added that he did not believe that the ability of the other Planners should be denied to know historic preservation. Mr. Zunguze said that the more the Planners in the Division understand the various processes, the better the service that can be provided. He stated that the reorganization changes are being done with the notion of providing the community with the best service as possible. Mr. Zunguze said, 'We know the folks we have and they are spirited enough that whatever they are assigned to, they will do their very best, and they will have a Manager who has a knowledge base of that particular area to guide the end product for a resolution. He said that he thought it was very important that the Planners in the Division had a sense of what the "left hand knows" otherwise there would continue to be a "disconnect" in the system.
Ms. Mickelsen said that her work was similar to that because there are people specialized in the products that her company handles. Ms. Mickelsen said that she could see that "broadening the horizons" of the other Planners would be a "big advantage" for preservation efforts. She believed it would be good that all the Planners would have a collective interest.
Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that the Planners will continue to have their "passions" and he would not want them to give that up. He added that everyone has favorite parts of his/her job. Mr. Wheelwright stated, "But because we are passionate about one thing, we shouldn't be able to do and know all the other things." Ms. Mickelsen agreed and said that Division would have to handle neighborhoods very carefully, because ''we have our favorites".
Mr. Christensen said that one of the frustrations of the Commission is not with the Planning Staff, but with Building Inspectors, who are a wonderful core of people, but do not seem to fully understand the specialized requirements that the Commission works with in every meeting. He said that he has seen many problems when it came to the actual inspection of buildings in historic districts where allowances were made that would be typical in a nonhistoric district. Mr. Christensen asked if there was opportunity to do some specific training for the Building Inspectors in preservation issues. He stated, "If we are actually rotating our specialists so that all the Planners will know historic preservation, could the same opportunity be provided to teach the Building Inspectors and see if there could be better enforcement." Mr. Zunguze said that he sees the same disconnection with the Planning Commission approvals. He indicated that he did not know if that would be possible within the realm of his authority. However, he said that the issue could be discussed with the new director of Building Services. Mr. Zunguze added that although the divisions were separate, they have a symbiotic relationship. He noted that a new Director of Building Services would be starting the following Monday and there would be an opportunity to sit down and discuss ways to better coordinate these sensitive issues.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that he did not want to "bash" the inspection team because they have always operated with less than they needed to do the job. He said that the issue is not limited to special training or understanding because the Division has had the same frustrations with the planning and site related improvements which have largely been ignored. Mr. Wheelwright reported that these frustrations are based on two factors: How well the Planning Division communicates to the Building Inspectors what the approved conditions might be, and he said that Staff has not been the best in communicating with them, and for what the Building Inspectors feel they will be held responsible. Mr. Wheelwright believes that the Building Inspectors do not think past the Uniform Building Code. He continued by saying that the Planning Division has made an effort to ensure that approved conditions are reflected on the site plans and that has been the way of communicating what the requirements might be on a certain project. However, he said that he found out that the site plans never leave the building so when the inspection crew go out for inspections, they do not have the plans with them, so all the efforts the Planning Division has put in the system, are lost. Mr. Wheelwright added that the Building Inspectors have their "blinders" on and they just consult the Uniform Building Code aspects, and if the construction activity meets the building aspects, they sign off on the project. He stated that when it would become an enforcement issue, the Certificate of Occupancy would have been already issued. Mr. Wheelwright said that from a legal prospective, "we can complain and cry all day long, that it wasn't built the way it was approved, but we have been trumped by this process". He added that it has really been a challenge.
Mr. Wheelwright said that it was similar with the Division's attempts of a community planner, which went back ten to fifteen years. He said that the Planning Division would have had to double its staff to have made the community planner method work. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the Planning Division did not double its staff so there has been a disparity of functionality ever since. He stated that he believed the change would be much more effective in unifying the support for all the communities and at the same time broaden everyone's expertise base.
Ms. Mickelsen commented that it will take some trust issues. She said that her past involvement with some Planners was that they did not have any history of a particular neighborhood. Ms. Mickelsen noted that perhaps these issues could be discussed further at a retreat. She said that when she attended the preservation conference in San Antonio, one idea that she carried away was that a City could not have a solid preservation program and was "dead in the water” if the regulations could not be enforced. Mr. Zunguze agreed with that summation. Ms. Mickelsen thanked Mr. Zunguze and Mr. Wheelwright for their input.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 002-04. at 180 North "0" Street. by Karen Day, represented by Sam Alexander of Alexander and Gibbs Architecture. requesting approval of a roof reconstruction. the addition of dormers on the north and south slopes of the existing roof. and an addition to the rear of the existing house. The property is located within the Avenues 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: The owners of the house at 180 North "0" Street are requesting approval to rebuild the existing roof structure, and to add a rear addition and dormers to the existing 1-1/2 story structure. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District and is zoned SR-1. The proposed work is being referred to the Commission for review because of the size of the proposed addition and the proposed alterations to the existing roofline.
According to the site form prepared for this property in 1979, this house was constructed c.1902 by Walter W. Williams, a cabinet maker at Dinwoody Furniture Company, who lived at 166 North "N" Street His son Arthur J. Williams, moved into the house with his wife, Alice M. Williams. Arthur was an unskilled laborer who apparently changed jobs often. He is listed in city directories as a "teamster, " Coal Company yardman, "finisher'' and cemetery worker. He lived in the house until his death in 1942.
The house was extensively remodeled in 1991. At that time, 750 square feet of living space was added in the roof structure of the building. A bay window/dormer was added to the south side of the building, and a dormer was added to the north side of the roof. Aluminum siding was removed from the front gables and new wood shingles were installed on the gable walls to match the historic appearance of the house. The quality of this work was apparently very poor, and the owners must now replace much of the work that was done.
Since much of the 1991 work must be replaced, the owners are proposing additional changes to the exterior that will facilitate reworking of the interior second floor plan and allow for additional living space.
The existing bay window/dormer on the south side, which was constructed as part of the 1991 work, would be re-constructed and re-configured, with three aluminum clad wood windows on the first story trimmed with wood. The second story dormer would be enlarged to overhang the first story bay by approximately 18 inches. Two single-hung wood windows would be added to the dormer, which would be shingled with cedar shingles and trimmed with wood details, including a cornice that would match the cornice on the original portions of the house. A similar dormer would be placed on the back of the south elevation. The two dormers would be joined by a smaller shed dormer with a pair of casement windows.
The hipped roof slope and small dormer on the rear (east side) of the house would be removed, and a wood shingled gable and small deck would be added. A set of aluminum clad wood sliding French-style doors is proposed for this side.
Three dormers are proposed for the north side of the roof. One would be a reconstruction of the existing dormer on this side, with two additional dormers flanking either side. The dormers would each have an aluminum-clad wood casement window, with wood trim. Cedar shingles are proposed as the wall material for these dormers. As an alternate scheme, the front dormer could be replaced with a flat, Velux-type skylight, but the owners would prefer to add a dormer instead of the skylight.
Aluminum fascia and soffits installed in 1991 would be removed, and new wood fascia and soffits would be installed. A new wood window would be installed in the front gable to match the historic appearance of the building. The entire roof would be reframed, and reshingled with architectural grade asphalt shingles. A new painted brick chimney is proposed at the peak of the roof.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(1 through 12) of Salt Lake City's 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:
Staff determined that Subsections (2), (6), (9), and (12) of the zoning ordinance was pertinent to this application:
(2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Staff's discussion: The applicants propose to remove the existing hipped roof slope on the rear of the house and construct a new, larger addition on the back of the building. This approach has been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission many times in the past, and Staff is of the opinion that such additions can be successful if the original form of the primary portion of the house is retained and the details on the addition are compatible with the historic character of the house.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, adopted in 1999 by the Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council, are also recommended for such an approach.
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. The design of the proposed dormers echoes the symmetry and details of the historic building.
Staff's discussion: The existing 1991 additions were not well detailed with respect to window size and trim. The proposed additions would replace these elements with new windows and trim more in keeping with the style of the house.
Staff's finding of fact: The character-defining elements of the property will be preserved and reinforced by the proposed project. The applicant meets this standard.
(6) Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects.
Staffs discussion: The applicants propose to retain as much of the existing historic material of the house as possible. Much of the historic fabric of the house was removed in its 1991 remodeling. The additions from 1991 have not acquired significance in their own right, and need to be replaced due to poor design or construction.
Staffs finding of fact: The application complies with this standard.
(9) Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Staff's discussion: Although unlikely, the proposed work would be reversible, and the building could be returned to its historic size and appearance without destroying the essential form and integrity of the building. As previously noted, the proposed project would reinforce the integrity of the building by removing incompatible alterations to the house.
The Design Guidelines offer the following guidance on the siting, massing, size, and scale of an addition:
8.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Set back an addition from historically important primary facade s 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 facade s and use a 11Connector" to link it. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
8.3 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
8.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition shall be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a differentiation between historic and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original building and the addition also may establish a more sound structural design to resist earthquake damage, while helping to define it as a later addition.
B.5 Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building. For example, if the building historically had a horizontal emphasis, this orientation shall be continued in the addition.
B.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.
B.7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition shall not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.
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. See also the discussion of specific building types and styles.
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, 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.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City offer the following guidance on Rooftop Additions:
B.11 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to the scale of the historic building. An addition shall not overhang the lower floors of the historic building in the front or on the side.
8.12 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street. A minimum setback of 10 feet is recommended. Greater flexibility may be considered in the setback of a dormer addition on a hipped or pyramidal roof.
8.13 The roof form and slope of the addition must be in character with the historic building. If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition shall be similar. Eave lines on the addition shall be similar to those of the historic building or structure. Dormers shall be subordinate to the overall roof mass and shall be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures.
Staff's discussion: Although the proposed addition is large in relation to the existing building, the mass of the addition is located behind and is subordinate to the original portion of the house. The gable of the addition matches the existing roofline on the historic portion of the house. The wall material and details of the addition distinguish it from the historic portion of the building.
The proposed materials on the addition differentiate the new work from the historic portion of the building. Wood shingles were used on the gables of this building and were commonly used historically on additions.
The proposed windows and doors are compatible in size, material, configuration and function with the doors and windows on the historic building. The proposed dormers and skylights are located on the side of the structure and are compatible in design and detail with the style of the house. The front gable on the north slope of the building would only be six feet back from the front of the building, not the ten feet recommended by the design guidelines. However, Staff is of the opinion that the original roofline and configuration of the house would still be discernible.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City make these additional recommendations with respect to dormers and skylights:
7.4 Minimize the visual impact of skylights and other rooftop devices. The addition of features such as skylights or solar panels should not be installed in a manner such that they will interrupt the plane of the historic roof. They should be lower than the ridgeline, when possible. Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered on the rear and sides of the roof. Locating a skylight on a front roof plane is inappropriate.
8.13 The roof form and slope of the addition must be in character with the historic building. If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition shall be similar. Eave lines on the addition shall be similar to those of the historic building or structure. Dormers shall be subordinate to the overall roof mass and shall be in scale with historic ones on similar historic structures.
Staff's finding of fact: The design of the addition takes steps recommended by the city's design guidelines to ensure that the essential form and integrity of the building would not be impaired. The addition and alterations are compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features, and differentiate the new work from the old. The addition would be reversible. The proposed work meets this standard.
(12) Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council.
Staff's discussion: The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City includes an extensive discussion on additions to historic structures. Specific guidelines that are applicable in this case are noted in the discussion of each standard. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed project is in keeping with all of the standards in the design guidelines.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed work meets the applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Knight offered the following recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed and further recommends that final approval be delegated to Staff if any minor revisions or additional details are required by the Commission."
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Christensen inquired if the work done in 1991 was without a permit. Mr. Knight said that initially the project was an enforcement case, and proceeded ahead once it went through the Historic Landmark Commission a couple of times. He said that the plans had to be revised. Mr. Knight said that apparently there are many problems with the construction. Mr. Christensen said that it was surprising for a project that was inspected would have been constructed in such a "sloppy" manner. He added that he wondered why it had to be rebuilt. Mr. Knight said that the new owners have been very frustrated with all the problems they have encountered. Mr. Christensen inquired if the roof pitch would remain the same. He also pointed out that the window in the front gable on the site plan was different than the existing window. Mr. Christensen inquired if the change in the window was so it would appear like it did in the tax photo. Mr. Knight said that a tax photo was not included in the packets, but there is one available. He said that he hoped the applicants brought a copy of the photo. Mr. Knight suggested clarifying the window detail with the architect.
Mr. Ashdown pointed out the addition of the chimney and inquired if that would be in the same location as the existing swamp cooler. Mr. Knight said that the swamp cooler would be removed and a chimney would be constructed in the same place.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the site plans were very confusing and asked if the original footprint of the house was the same. Mr. Knight that the footprint of the original house has not changed. He pointed out the lean-to addition on the rear. Mr. Knight recommended clarifying the plans with the architect.
Ms. Heid asked if 12 feet in the back yard from the property line was sufficient. Mr. Knight said that the 12-foot dimension is to the back of the garage. Ms. Heid inquired if there would still be sufficient room in the back yard even with the addition. Mr. Knight said that the garage that is shown on the site plan is a future addition to the property. He added that was why there were no details on the garage because it is still in the planning stages. Mr. Knight said that the garage is something that would receive an administrative review at a later date.
Mr. Parvaz said that it seems like the south elevation has a different roof pitch than the north elevation. Mr. Christensen said that looks like the shed dormer which would have to be at a different elevation. Mr. Knight confirmed that the roof slope on the shed dormer would be a different roof pitch, but it would still "read" as a dormer from a visual standpoint and would be setback further than the two gables on each side of the dormer.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Karen Day, the applicant, and her architect, Mr. Sam Alexander, were present. Ms. Day said that the structure was put together very poorly. She stated that the first week after her family moved in and realized the upstairs rooms were 10 to 15 degrees colder than the lower floor, they contacted the person who did the construction, Mr. Guy Hatch, and he said that he forgot to put in insulation. Ms. Day said that there were electrical and plumbing permits but was not clear if the inspectors followed up on the building permit. She continued to report on some of the problems with the house such as no reinforcement for the foundation of the house; the house has a partial dug out basement and it was discovered that the 2x4 supports for the upper floors were sitting on top of the dirt causing all the ceilings and walls to crack; no flashing was put around the dormers and when it rains, water comes down through the house; no sub flooring upstairs, only a tongue and groove flooring system that does not connect; during construction a pipe was cut causing more water damage which was not repaired; and there is bendable tubing for the heating system upstairs and there is not enough power to force the heat up through the ceiling vents. Ms. Day said that the house has so many problems that it just "blows my mind, quite frankly".
Mr. Alexander stated that the previous contractor did not do a very good job of waterproofing the house. He said that instead of re-roofing, he just tied the new roof in with the existing with tar and it was not done very effectively. Mr. Alexander said that the south elevation sits on the concrete sidewalk because there is no foundation. He pointed out that there was damage to the columns in the basement and he is not certain what other problems they may encounter. Mr. Alexander said that the applicant wants to make sure that the new construction is structurally sound and that all the loads are transferred well down in the existing foundation. He added that because so much work will be done, it would not make sense to try to tie into the existing roof structure. Mr. Alexander said that everyone concern wants to make sure that the new construction is well engineered, rather than trying to reconstruct what is already there.
Ms. Day said that they bought the house at a time when the Avenues properties were booming. She said that she had lived in the Avenues for years, and so when she and her husband got married every house they tried to buy had several bids on them. Ms. Day said that they saw this house and thought it was a great house perfect for their needs. She said that when the owner accepted their proposal, they moved right in. Ms. Day said that the children are going to the neighborhood elementary school. She stated that the neighbors have been ''fantastic".
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by inquiring if the applicant was able to find a tax photo. Ms. Day said that there are two of them. She indicated that she did not bring them with her. Ms. Day said that one photo showed an oblong window in the gable with no detailing around it; it did not have the arch like the existing window. She said that she did not believe there was a window in the front gable originally. Mr. Christensen inquired if the applicant had plans to reconstruct that front gable using the fish scale shingles. Mr. Alexander said that they plan to use decorative shingles, a little different in design. Mr. Christensen would like to have known what the original materials were. Ms. Day told him that she could provide a photograph. She said that the roof was flat in front with no detailing. Mr. Christensen inquired if the applicant proposed six panes of glass in the window in the front gable. Mr. Alexander said that the window would be a casement with six panes. Mr. Christensen asked if the decorative brackets would be wood. Mr. Alexander said that the brackets on the porches would be made out of wood.
• Ms. Mickelsen clarified that the fish scale shingles would not be used. Mr.
Alexander said that fish scale shingles were not on the structure originally and that was not what the applicant was proposing. He added that square cut cedar shingles is proposed to be used.
• Mr. Parvaz asked if the chimney would be functional. Mr. Alexander said that the chimney would be functional and used for either a furnace or a fireplace. He also said that there is a furnace downstairs and there is a new furnace in the attic that will heat the upper floor. Mr. Alexander said that the fireplace may be vented through the wall on the east elevation. Mr. Parvaz asked about the swamp cooler. Mr. Alexander assured the Commission that the swamp cooler would be removed because there are plans for an air conditioning to be installed.
• Ms. Rowland asked by building a balcony on the second floor if the building would extend further into the backyard than it does now. Mr. Alexander said that it would not. He stated that the applicant is working with the zoning people in the City. He added that it may be possible for the applicant to build a new porch the same size as the existing entry. Ms. Day said that the day after Christmas a huge part of an old tree fell on the porch and smashed the awning. She said that they have a barbeque area and a hot tub and they have not decided what they plan to do in that area.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. John Roberson, who resides next door at 174 North "011 Street, stated that he was one of those "fantastic" neighbors. He said that this was the first time he had seen the plans for the proposed construction. Mr. Roberson said that he was only concerned about the proposed location for the compressor unit for the air conditioning system. He said that the house south of his had three noisy compressor units that run all summer long and asked if the applicants would consider another location. Also, he asked that the lighting on the south elevation by the rear entry be subdued. Mr. Roberson talked about the contractor who did the remodeling in 1991 and said that he had done several projects in the Avenues. He thanked the Commission.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Heid said that she needed clarification because she believed that new additions should not try to replicate original materials, but the materials had to be compatible. She said she was concerned about the proposed materials for the front gable and whether or not fish scale details would be used.
There was a great deal of discussion about the originality of the existing materials and the materials that are proposed. It was pointed out that the fish scale decoration was on the top triangle of the second gable as well.
Mr. Knight stated that once he looks at a copy of the tax photo, Staff could verify the materials on the front gables also the window pattern if the Commission wanted to give a firm direction for Staff to pursue before the final drawings are approved. He said that he would find the documentation.
Mr. Ashdown said that it seemed to him that the drawings were very explicit as to the design of the proposal and he might reject it if the applicant tries to replicate the fish scales if they were not original. Ms. Rowland commented that it was difficult to prove what was on the house originally. Mr. Ashdown said that it was his opinion that by taking the roof off and rebuilding it, it would be saving more of the house. He reiterated that it would be an action to save the house more than it would be to destroy it.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the front gable did not exist at one time. Mr. Christensen said that it was there but it was rebuilt at some time. Mr. Knight said that the front gable was once covered with aluminum siding until it was rebuilt as part of the 1991 remodel. He also said that aluminum fascia and soffits were also installed and they had to come off. Ms. Mickelsen said that it would have to be the personal choice of the applicant. Ms. Mickelsen said that it might be attractive to have a little different touch on the front gable but it would be the applicant's personal choice.
Ms. Mickelsen entertained a motion. Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved in Case No. 002.04 after a review of the proposal and the issues with the applicant, that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the findings of fact and recommendation as written in the staff report, that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the project as proposed with the final approval delegated to Staff, and that the Commission encourage, but not require, the applicant to consider using the shingle treatment on the western most elevation of the house to replicate an original finish whether that be a straight cut shingle or fish scale. The Historic Landmark Commission assumed that it will be a cedar shingle treatment on the front elevation. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Simonsen, Chairperson, and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS Legislative Intent.
Mr. Zunguze said that he hoped a copy of the Legislative Intent would be ready to be distributed at the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting for review. He mentioned that he would be meeting with Councilmember Jergensen shortly thereafter.
Ms. Mickelsen asked Mr. Zunguze if he was planning to make the presentation to the City
Council. Mr. Zunguze said that was his expectation.
Mr. Wheelwright said that the Legislative of Intent would go through the transmittal process to the City Council. Mr. Parvaz asked about the size of the document. Mr. Knight said that it had been edited down to 42 pages.
Mr. Zunguze stated that it had been quite an experience getting to know "who we are and how we think". He added that the disconnect between how land use policies are made and the way preservation issues are viewed in the community is amazing. Mr. Zunguze noted that it has been an "eye opening" experience.
Mr. Wheelwright said that the end product has been mostly the combined effort of Ms. Giraud, Mr. Knight, and Ms. Lew and their collaboration. He said that "we are pretty proud of it". Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that it would be a document for all to read, especially new Commissioners.
Mr. Zunguze added that it would be good for the City as a whole, and he hoped that the members of the City Council would read the full document. He said that it has been a great opportunity to tell the story of preservation. He noted that the City Council might not quite like the story but "we opened the door' for good dialogue about preservation issues in the City.
Ms. Mickelsen concluded by saying that she thought the session was quite valuable when the Commission discussed these issues. She thanked Mr. Zunguze and Mr. Wheelwright on behalf of the Commission.
The Moss Court House expansion and the Shubrick Building.
Mr. Ashdown said that there seems to be another battle brewing pertaining to the Shubrick Building on the corner of 300 South and West Temple Streets. He said that he did not believe it was on the historic registers. Mr. Ashdown indicated that he would like to propose an opinion to the Mayor and the City Council. He added that he knew the Historic Landmark Commission had been told to interpret the ordinance and zoning regulations and not to render opinions. Mr. Ashdown said that he believed there is some value in what the Historic Landmark Commission thinks about this situation. He continued by saying that he believed the Commission should be able to comment about the federal government changing their plans "mid stream" if plans were going to be presented to the Historic Landmark Commission in the future, as they did before, on the Moss Court House expansion. Ms. Mickelsen said she thought the federal government changed the plans for security reasons. Mr. Ashdown stated, 'Which is in my opinion a 'red herring' because the plans were generated after '9/11' and to move the building out to the streetscape because they say that it would be more secure than keeping it in the center of the block doesn't make any sense."
Ms. Mickelsen asked Mr. Zunguze for his thoughts on the subject.
Mr. Zunguze said that this expansion process has been an ongoing battle with the federal Government Services Agency (GSA). He mentioned that he and Ms. Giraud made some progress with saving the Odd Fellows Building, but the City's demand for things is somewhat limited. However, he indicated that there is a fairly decent relationship between the Planning Staff and the GSA people. Mr. Zunguze commented that one of the things that they "battled" was not to wipe out the Odd Fellows Building and out of the Market Street area. He pointed out that another issue was that the GSA wanted to have a 100- foot distance between the street and the building for security reasons. Mr. Zunguze said that he also knew there were some legal issues involved. He said that "tact" would be the best method of handling those involved, but there is no simple solution. Mr. Zunguze noted that the plans had not been completely finalized as yet. Ms. Mickelsen commented that the Shubrick Building was privately owned.
Mr. Ashdown pointed out that it seemed to him that the prior agreement was also crafted with the idea of keeping the Shubrick around and now the federal government wants to change that. Mr. Zunguze commented that it was his understanding that that agreement has been changed, because the GSA no longer needs the entire block for the project.
Ms. Heid said that it sounded as if the only decision would be whether the Shubrick Building would be sold for a reasonable price then demolished or the GSA would declare eminent domain; it sounds like it will be gone either way. Mr. Zunguze noted that an article in the newspaper quoted Senator Hatch as saying that the building should come down to make room for the court house expansion.
Ms. Mickelsen suggested that the community should get behind the saving of the Shubrick Building, but wondered if this building would get the same support as the Odd Fellows Building received. Mr. Ashdown commented that perhaps the people who are in support of the business in the building.
Mr. Christensen pointed out that there was an earlier plan that the federal government had which would have used the vacant piece of property now held by Mr. Earl Holding. He asked if GSA had considered reopening that plan to exploit the use of that vacant property without interrupting the current function of the Shubrick Building. Mr. Zunguze said those plans were essentially abandoned because there was a cost issue involved and Congress would have had to put more money into the expansion plans.
Ms. Heid commented on the loss of an historic building and mentioned that she lives down the street from the Bill and Nada's Cafe site and also the home site which is across the street which is now just a dirt lot with nothing being built to replace the historic structures. She said, "It would be nice to think that this was about the building and the competitive nature of two plans, but you always have a sneaking suspicion that it is about getting rid of the business that is operating in that location." Mr. Zunguze stated that there were many issues regarding the use of the Shubrick Building, the new court house, and the security of the building.
The discussion continued. At the conclusion it was decided that the members of the Commission could render an opinion, as individual members of the Historic Landmark Commission to lend credibility, but would have to take care that the opinion would not reflect the Commission as a whole.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Rowland moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 5:30 P.M.