May 16,2001

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 Scott Christensen, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Cheri Coffey, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.

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

Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planners.

Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.

An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according 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.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the May 2, 2001 meeting, as amended. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

NEW BUSINESS

Case No. 008-01, at 615 No. West Capitol Street. by Nathan Jones, represented by Allen Roberts, from Cooper/Roberts/Simonsen, Architects, requesting a new rear addition and a new two-car garage on site. This was originally heard as Case No. 017-99 and was approved on October 20, 1999. It is necessary to rehear the case because the approval has expired. This property is in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She referred to her memorandum of May 10, 2001, and said that this case was heard and approved by the Historic Landmark Commission on October 20, 1999. Ms. Giraud said it was necessary to rehear the case because the approval had expired. She pointed out that Mr. Jones plans to appear before the Board of Adjustment on May 21, 2001, to request variances for the garage in the front yard. Ms. Giraud reported that Mr. Jones received variances in 1999, but these also expired. She noted that the Planning Division Staff did not anticipate that his request before the Board of Adjustment would be denied. She stated that staff recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposal.

Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Nathan Jones, represented by Mr. Allen Roberts of Cooper Roberts-Simonsen Architects, is requesting approval to construct an addition at the rear of his house and a two-car garage. She said that the property is zoned Special Pattern Residential District SR-1.

Ms. Giraud said that the property is considered non-contributing, as it was extensively remodeled from a small cottage into its present configuration in 1989. She said that Cooper-Roberts Architects (which was the name in 1999) did the design work when the home was remodeled. Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Roberts informed staff that the house was originally a two-room dwelling, constructed in the 1950's, which conflicts with the site survey form that describes the home as "tiny ·frame cabin built shortly after 1898. She stated that the original fabric and design of the house is now completely obscured.

Ms. Giraud reported that the scope of the proposed addition consists of the following:

1) a two-story addition and clerestory, and a one-story addition with a basement level and roof deck behind the existing house; 2) two-story bay window and stone chimney is proposed for the north elevation; 3) proposed windows would be enameled aluminum clad wood; 4) proposing to clad the existing structure, the addition and the garage with a light cream or tan stucco and stone for the chimney; 5) asphalt shingles are proposed for the roof; 6) two-car, two-story garage would be close to the street, to the north of the house; and 6) because the slope of the lot is so steep, the applicant proposes to use space under the garage for a dark room and photo processing area.

Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission is required to review whether this application substantially complies with the standards outlined in Section 12A.34.020(H) of the City's Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4), H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which was included in the staff report.

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construct 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 non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the city.

(1)(a through d) Scale and Form.

The height and width, the proportion of principal facades, the roof shape, and the scale of the structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape.

Summary of staff's discussion: Mr. Roberts provided a streetscape view in which the proposed second-story addition and clerestory appears equal to that to that of the house to the south, and lower in height than the house to the north. With the exception of the proposed bay window on the north elevation, the width of the house would not change. The garage will have a prominent position in the streetscape. Although garages have generally not been allowed in front of primary structures, because of the steep topography of this street, the Historic Landmark Commission has approved several accessory buildings in similar locations. The width of the garage, the use of a gable roof, and the height are similar to garages along this block on No. West Capitol Street. While the garage is substantial in size much of the square footage will be hidden from view and accommodated by the steep slope of the property.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed addition and garage are visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape.

(2)(a through d) Composition of Principal Facades.

The relationship of the proportion of openings, the rhythm of solids to voids, the rhythm of entrance porch and other projections, and the relationship of materials shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape.

Summary of staff's discussion: The proposed fenestration consists of an extensive use of floor-to-ceiling windows and glass doors. Several single pane windows are also proposed. A new roof deck on the proposed one story addition on the south elevation, a bay window that extends the full height of the house and a chimney on the north elevation compose the new projections. Because these features will be either at the rear of the house or behind the proposed garage, they will not be visible from the street. Furthermore, the proposed addition will be set far enough behind the adjacent properties that the compatibility of the wall openings should not adversely affect surrounding properties. Because the roof pitch of the clerestory will be similar to those of other gabled roofs on the street, the clerestory will not be excessive in height, and will not interrupt the existing visual quality of the west side of No. West Capitol Street. Materials for nearby houses consist of stucco, brick, and vertical or horizontal wood siding. Stucco is the predominant material for the most recently built homes on the street.

Staff’s finding of fact: The proportion of openings, the rhythm of solids to voids, the rhythm of entrance porch and other projections, and the relationship of materials of the proposed addition and garage will be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape.

(3)(a through d) Relationship to Street.

Walls of continuity, the rhythm of spacing and the structures on streets, the directional expression of principal elevation, and pedestrian streetscape improvements shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which the proposed construction is visually related.

Summary of staff's discussion: There would be little change with the relationship of the house to the street. The width, and the directional expression will remain the same. The siting of the garage a few feet from the street and in front of the house is unusual in the Capitol Hill Historic District, but has been allowed both by the Historic Landmark Commission and the Board of Adjustment for properties on this street because of the topography and narrow street width. The architect has taken care to mitigate the effect of the garage on the streetscape by proposing two single doors, a window in the gable end, and by matching the roof pitch to that of the house.

Pedestrian streetscape improvements are not proposed in this application.

Staff's finding of fact: The walls of continuity, the rhythm of spacing and structures on the street, and the directional expression of principal elevations of the proposed addition and the garage will be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and with the streetscape of No. West Capitol 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 finding of fact: The subdivision of lots is not an issue in this application.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the proposed addition and garage, and recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the Board of Adjustment for a variance for the siting of the garage.

Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.

Ms. Rowland inquired about any changes to the proposal since it was previously approved. Ms. Giraud said she did not know of any changes, but if there are, the applicant would inform the Commission.

Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Nathan Jones, the applicant, as well as his architect, Mr. Allen Roberts, was present. Mr. Roberts stated that he was sorry the permit expired.

Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired about changes since the last review. Mr. Roberts said that there was one modification that has been made which is shown on the newer drawings that were submitted for the reapplication. He said that the applicant only added two side dormers on the north and south sides of the proposed garage. Mr. Roberts pointed out that a new garage across the street that was approved by this Commission has four gables and the applicants wanted to do something similar. He said that the applicant added a gable dormer on the north and south sides. Mr. Roberts said that everything else was the same. Mr. Jones said that the height would still be 17 feet to the apex on the front elevation. Ms. Giraud said that staff could accept that modification. After a short discussion, it was clarified that the new drawings were not included in the staff report.

• Mr. Littig asked how the staff felt about the Palladian window in the front elevation of the proposed garage. Ms. Giraud said that staff could accept that, then she said that she was more concerned about the scale of the proposed project and the relationship it would have to the street. Mr. Littig said that a Palladian window was a "red flag" to him. Mr. Gordon said that he believed that the style of window would fit in with the bay window. Mr. Roberts said that the window would not be a true Palladian window; that it would be an arched window. He added that the applicant did not want to replicate the exact design as the new garage across the street from the proposed project. There was a short discussion regarding this matter.

• Mr. Christensen inquired about the rest of the windows in the proposed project.

Ms. Giraud said that the enameled aluminum clad wood windows would be used, as stated in the staff report. Mr. Knight said that they would have a comparable profile to wood. Ms. Giraud inquired if the windows in the new garage across the street were the same type of window planned for this project and Mr. Roberts indicated that they were. When Mr. Christensen asked if the windows in the double doors would be made from the same material, Mr. Roberts said that those windows would be fixed with wooden stops rather than aluminum assemblies. He added that the proposed garage would have wood trim and doors because the house has wood doors. Mr. Roberts said that the applicant wanted a "wood" look rather than an "aluminum" look. He noted that the new garage across the street has more depth than the proposed garage will have because of the stonework on the front.

• Mr. Wilson talked about the topography of the property and inquired how far it would be from the level of the proposed garage to the level of the house. Mr. Jones said that the level of the house relative to the street is about twenty feet and he calls it a “house in a hole” and added that the visibility of the house is very obscure from the street

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz 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 discussion. Motion:

Mr. Young moved to accept staff's recommendations and re-approve Case No. 008-01 based on staff's findings of fact. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion.

There were some recommendations for amending the motion. Mr. Young accepted the amendments.

Amended final motion:

Mr. Young moved that the Historic Landmark Commission accept staff's recommendations and approve Case No. 008-01, as presented, based on staff's findings of fact. This approval extends to include the gable dormers. Also recommend that the design and the details of the garage doors be reviewed and approved by staff. Mr. Christensen's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 009-01, at 523 East 800 South by Russ Schmit, requesting to replace the existing vinyl siding with a synthetic stucco system on a house in the Central City Historic District.

Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud stated that the applicant, Russ Schmit, was requesting approval to remove vinyl siding, applied without a permit or Historic Landmark Commission approval in 1994, and apply a synthetic stucco system to the exterior of a contributing structure, as evaluated in a 1994 reconnaissance survey of the district. She pointed out that a 1938 tax photograph portrays wood novelty siding on the projecting gable front portion of the house, rectangular shingles in the gable end and stucco on the entranceway wall and east wall. Ms. Giraud said that at the time the reconnaissance survey was undertaken, the novelty siding had been sheathed with asbestos siding and the rectangular shingles were visible. She noted that stucco has been part of the history of the building. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Schmit hired a contractor in 1994 to apply the siding and the building was subsequently "red-tagged" because no building permit or Historic Landmark Commission approval had been obtained. She added that other housing citations were also issued in 1994.

Ms. Giraud reported that Mr. Schmit addressed the other issues to the satisfaction of the inspector, promising to remove the vinyl siding at a later date. She said that the violations, including the application of the siding, were released, based upon a promise that was not fulfilled. Ms. Giraud stated that when it was brought to the attention of the housing division that no Historic Landmark Commission approval had been issued for the vinyl siding, the housing/zoning officer issued another citation for the siding. She noted that a total of $21,675 in fines has accrued as of May 1, 2001, and the City has filed a suit in State Court. Ms. Giraud added that the trial has been postponed until June 5, 2001 in order to allow Mr. Schmit to present his proposal to use stucco to this Commission. She stated that the property owner indicated that if the Historic Landmark Commission would approve stucco on the entire house, he or his contractor would remove the vinyl siding.

Ms. Giraud stated that the City's suit against Mr. Schmit addresses only the removal of the vinyl siding. However, she said that if the City wins the suit, Mr. Schmit will not be required to remove the existing asbestos siding and replace it with a more historically appropriate material.

Ms. Giraud addressed the letter Mr. Schmit directed to staff, in which he asked three questions, as follows:

1. "Does the Committee have the authority to approve existing vinyl siding?" Staff response: No. The ordinance clearly prohibits the use of vinyl siding. This is explained at length below.

2. "Can the Committee make recommendations on how the current owner can get the permits to do the work himself?" Staff response: Mr. Schmit's question refers to a section of the City code that requires anyone working on a house that they do not occupy to have a contractor's license or hire a contractor to complete the work, for work amounting to more than $500. This is a legal question that cannot be addressed by the Planning staff or the Historic Landmark Commission.

3. "Can the Committee authorize the application of "stucco" on the entire building?" Staff response: This question is the subject of this staff report, discussed at length below.

Ms. Giraud explained that the Historic Landmark Commission has opposed synthetic siding for many years and in 1980 the Commission adopted the following policy regarding the use of artificial materials: "The use of artificial materials in a building which is listed on the City Register (either as a landmark site or as part of an historic district) shall not be approved unless it is proven necessary for the preservation of the building." She added that the policy lists the artificial materials addressed by the Commission, which includes vinyl and aluminum siding.

Ms. Giraud talked about other cases reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission requesting the application of synthetic siding to contributing structures in historic districts, and they were all denied. More information on these cases was included in the staff report. She added that in one case reviewed in 1999, the Commission required removal of aluminum fascia and soffit, installed without a permit on an apartment building, but allowed the vinyl siding installed on the back porches of the building to remain because the siding was installed on a non-historic, non-contributing portion of the building.

Ms. Giraud noted that the synthetic siding issue was addressed in the zoning ordinance rewrite, adopted in 1995. She stated that during the discussion for synthetic siding the members of the Historic Landmark Commission described the potential problems of synthetic siding and cited several reasons for their opposition to the application of synthetic siding, such as:

1. It obscures original material or material that defines the character of the house. Although siding salespeople claim that "it looks like wood," in reality it does not lend itself to the precise shaping that wood does, nor does it have the texture of wood.

2. Synthetic siding is often seen as a cure to problems that have nothing to do with the structure's cladding. The application can make the problem worse, however, because the cause of the deterioration is obscured. Problems with peeling and deteriorating paint are caused by an underlying moisture problem in the wall. Water either works its way up through wet soil and into the foundation, or else it works its way down through a roof leak or overflowing gutter. The water in the wall builds up behind the paint, loosening the bond between the paint and the wall. This causes peeling paint. When siding is installed over the existing wall, the moisture continues to seep into the wall; the siding only covers the problems that this causes. Over time, the moisture problems get worse, because water is trapped behind the siding. Often owners begin to notice problems on the interior wall, such as peeling wallpaper, caused by the additional water in the wall. The short-term solution has caused a larger long-term problem.

3. Contrary to the claims made by synthetic siding companies, aluminum and vinyl siding are not maintenance and problem-free. Many homeowners believe that the application of siding will save them from painting and ongoing maintenance but in fact, other problems occur that can be more costly and are unattractive. Vinyl and aluminum have their own maintenance headaches. Exposure to sunlight causes the pigments used in vinyl (and in the coatings applied to aluminum} to fade over time. Aluminum is easily dented, and vinyl can crack when aged, or in cold weather. All siding is susceptible to damage from storm, fire and vandalism; aluminum and vinyl are not as easily repaired as wood in these cases.

Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(1 through 12) Standards fora Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, which were included in the staff report. She noted that the Historic Landmark Commission must make its decision based on the standards in this ordinance.

G. 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 buildings and its site and environment.

Staffs discussion and findings of fact: The use of the structure would remain the same. The application complies with this standard.

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

Staffs discussion: As seen from the historic photograph, the use of novelty siding on the projecting front wing and shingles in the gable end were character-defining features of the house. Stucco was used on the rear portion of the building. At an unknown time, but certainly after World War II, the novelty siding was covered with asbestos shingles; the shingles and stucco remained. Using stucco on the entire house, rather than only the rear portion that was historically plastered, would provide a substantial change in texture on those portions that once had wood siding. If the building were to be completely stuccoed the appearance would be different from the original and any hope of restoration to its original appearance would be lost. However, dwellings with a sense of classicism similar to the subject property were frequently stuccoed, and a stucco application would not be out of keeping with the design of this building.

The Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation provides the following advice when facing design issues involving missing historic features: Where an important architectural feature is missing, its recovery is always recommended in the guidelines as the first or preferred course of action. Thus, if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exists so that the feature may be accurately reproduced, and if it is desirable to re-establish the feature as part of the building's historical appearance, then designing and constructing a new feature based on such information is appropriate. However, a second acceptable option for the replacement feature is a new design that is compatible with the remaining character-defining features of the historic building. The new design should always take into account the size, scale and material of the historic building itself and, most importantly, should be clearly differentiated so that a false historical appearance is not created.

Staffs findings of fact: While replacing the missing wood cladding would be the preferable option, stuccoing the building would be compatible with the size and scale of the building.

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

Staff's discussion: The 1938 photograph portrays wood sheathing and shingles, and cladding the building with stucco could be perceived as creating a false sense of history or architecture. However, the wood clapboard has long been obscured by the more recent asbestos shingles, and HLC has not made it a practice to force owners to return a property to an earlier appearance if that material or element has been removed or obscured. As stated in the previous standard, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a dwelling of this era, style and type would have been clad with stucco.

Staff's finding of fact: Staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.

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

Staff's discussion: It is doubtful that the asbestos shingles were applied prior to the 1950's, and thus do not have historic significance in its own right. None of the vinyl siding was applied on later additions to the building.

Staff's findings of fact: This standard does not apply in this case.

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

Staff's discussion: Staff is finding is that the early use of the materials (wood novelty and shingle siding and stucco) is a character-defining feature of the property, based on the evidence presented in the 1938 photograph. The architectural integrity was compromised when the asbestos shingles were applied, and it was completely obscured when the vinyl siding was applied. Again, the Historic Landmark Commission has not forced an owner to return to a material previously used but long since discarded or obscured. If the vinyl siding were removed and stucco applied to the entire structure, the character-defining feature in terms of wall materials would be restored to a partial extent. Some of the original material (the novelty siding) has not been visible for several decades.

Staff's findings of fact: Staff finds that the applicant meets this standard.

(6) Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced whenever 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.

Summary of staff's discussion: In the 1994 photograph, all of the materials (siding, shingles and stucco) appear to be deteriorated. If the Historic Landmark Commission determines that stucco is an inappropriate material for the entire house, and if Mr. Schmit decides to replace and repair the wood shingles and asbestos siding, then this work should be carried out according to the available photographs, and without conjecture (for example, round shingles in the gable ends should not be used in place of the rectangular shingles seen in the photographs). Because stucco did not cover the entire building, its use over the entire structure is partly conjectural.

Staff's findings of fact: The applicant does not meet this finding.

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

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: This standard is not applicable in this case; no chemical or physical treatments to the building are proposed.

(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.

Staff's discussion: The condition of any material under the vinyl siding is unknown, thus it is difficult to assess whether the application of stucco would destroy significant architectural material. Stuccoing the building would be compatible with the size, scale, material and character of the property, neighborhood and environment.

Staff's findings 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.

Staff's discussion: Stucco would permanently damage any historical cladding material.

Staff's findings of fact: Staff assumes much of this has already been severely damaged.

(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.

Staff's discussion: As discussed previously, the Historic Landmark Commission confronted the issue of synthetic materials several times between 1992 and 1994. In August 1994, the Commission discussed establishing a new policy concerning the use of synthetic siding, but decided to address the issue in the new, citywide zoning ordinance. The ordinance addresses the issue of synthetic siding on contributing structures or landmark sites in this section. The intent of this statement is to disallow synthetic siding on contributing structures. The ordinance clearly states that synthetic siding is not allowed on original or historic material, such as in the case of this finding.

(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.

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

(12) Additional design standards adopted by the historic landmark commission and City Council.

Staff's discussion: The Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City provides a policy statement that staff finds relevant to this case. The policy statement is as follows: 'The most significant feature of this district is its overall scale and simple character of buildings as a group, as a part of the streetscape. As a result, the primary goal is to preserve the general, modest character of each block as a whole, as seen from the street." Because the overall street character is the greatest concern, more 11exibility in other areas, particularly renovation details should be allowed. This goal for preservation also must be considered in the context of related neighborhood goals to attract investment and promote affordability.

Staff's findings of fact: Stuccoing the building would be an improvement over the current vinyl siding, which allows the building to convey little, if anything, about its early appearance. It would allow the residence to contribute to the overall streetscape of the district. The applicant meets this standard.

Ms. Giraud indicated that the staff report was difficult to write because of the argument that it could be conjectural to use stucco on part of the building when it was not there originally, specifically on the front gable portion of the building. However, the novelty siding has been covered for 30 or 40 years, and the Historic Landmark Commission does not make it a practice to make people revert to something that they had originally. Ms. Giraud stated that she did not believe it would be fair to Mr. Schmit to try and force him to go back to the novelty siding. She said she believed that stucco is something that would be seen on a house of this kind of massing in buildings of this era that you would find in Central City. In 1980, the Historic Landmark Commission adopted the following policy: 'The use of artificial material in a building which is listed on the City Register (either as a landmark site or as part of an historic district) shall not be approved unless it is proven necessary for the preservation of the building."

Ms. Giraud stated that it was her understanding that the court case would be dropped if Mr. Schmit removed the siding.

Ms. Giraud offered the following recommendation by staff: "Staff finds that the proposed work complies with most of the general standards outlined in the ordinance that pertain to the application and that approval is in the best interest of the Central City Historic District. Staff recommends approval of this application."

Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.

Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich clarified that in order for a permit to be issued, it is a requirement that a contractor has to do the work rather than Mr. Schmit. Ms. Giraud said that was correct.

Mr. Littig talked about losing the details on the structure if stucco is allowed and Ms. Giraud suggested the retention of those details as part of the requirement for approval. When Mr. Littig inquired about the windows, Ms. Giraud said the windows had been changed but was not part of this application.

Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich also talked about losing the details on the house, if stucco is allowed.

Mr. Gordon asked if the novelty siding was underneath the vinyl siding and Ms. Giraud said that she did not know.

There was some discussion about the applicant attending an Architectural Subcommittee to work out the details in this matter and make recommendations to help the applicant.

Mr. Christensen inquired if the applicant had discussed repairing the original shingles when the vinyl siding is removed, in order to save the applicant some money. Ms. Giraud indicated that was not discussed.

Since there were no further questions of staff, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

The applicant, Mr. Russell Schmit, said that he appreciated the opportunity to be able to present this case to the Commission to clear the record of how the property came into noncompliance. He said that the corporation, of which he was a member, owned the property. Mr. Schmit pointed out that the hired contractor had put vinyl siding on the house without a permit and a citation was issued against the corporation. He said that after three court appearances, the case was dismissed, finding that the corporation and its members were not responsible for the vinyl siding being installed.

Mr. Schmit said that there were discussions with Mr. Lynn Pace of the City Attorney's Office, trying to negotiate the stipulations of the case.

Mr. Schmit addressed the violations against the property. Mr. Schmit talked about the corporation's financial problems due to all the legal costs, the attorney's fees, the cost of hiring a contractor to do the work, and the fines that had accrued. He stated that the members of the corporation were capable of doing the work, but could not obtain a building permit to do the work themselves, unless the owner occupied the house. Mr. Schmit said, "It's been presented by the City that I have made a statement that I would remove the siding. I have never made those kinds of statements."

Mr. Schmit indicated that he bought the property from the corporation. He added, "They just wanted to get out from under it." He said that the City promised that the corporation's name would be removed from the lawsuit when he recorded the documents. However, Mr. Schmit said he had difficulty recording those documents because of the outstanding judgments that were against him, but he was eventually able to record them. He then said that the City backed out of dropping the corporation from the lawsuit, so consequently more legal fees have incurred.

During further negotiations with Mr. Pace, Mr. Schmit said that he was introduced to a material called "Hardiplank" or "Hardiboard" as an alternative to stucco. He said that part of the problem with the old building is the settling because there is no foundation under the structure. He said that if it was torn down, it could not be rebuilt due to the side yard requirements. Mr. Schmit indicated that after the vinyl siding was applied, the house was rented. He pointed out that the neighbors made favorable comments. He said that it was an attribute to the neighborhood.

Mr. Schmit continued by discussing the cost of removing the vinyl siding and applying stucco or Hardiboard to the exterior. He pointed out that there were three materials not allowed in historic districts: aluminum, vinyl siding, or a composite material that is created out of something to look like wood. Mr. Schmit said that when he heard about the Hardiboard material, he believed that the Commission had found a way "to implement or override that particular restriction. He added, 'This is not the only building in the 'hysteric' district that has either vinyl or aluminum so I would perceive that there has been some exemptions. One exemption would be that if this material existed before the district was created " Mr. Schmit also believed that the Historic Landmark Commission might have the authority to approve vinyl siding even though it is an historic district.

Mr. Schmit asked the same three questions, as previously outlined. 1) "Does the Committee have the authority to approve existing vinyl siding?" 2) "Can the Committee make recommendations on how the current owner can get the permits to do the work himself?" and 3) "Can the Committee authorize the application of "stucco" on the entire building?"

Mr. Schmit continued by saying, “the City is a many headed dragon. Each department makes their own decisions that seem separate, void, between whatever the public departments make and you can say, that’s not my problem, but I seem to be the individual that has to live with the decisions that these departments make, and it's not been a pleasant experience. I go from one department to the next, and they say, 'I'm, sorry but we are restricted here'. And the next question that I beg is, can these individuals that are making these decisions that I have to live with be made to be responsible for the decisions they do make? I guess the question that that arises is, you know, you're put in a position, many of the employees, department heads, are put into a position to make decisions and it has to deal with their discretion. The question that I have, can they be held if they abuse that discretion?"

Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by volunteering to answer the questions that the applicant had. But first, she inquired if the applicant had anything in writing to back-up what he said. Mr. Schmit said nothing direct. Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich said that the Historic Landmark Commission could not help him with that matter. Mr. Schmit went on to say, "As a commission, the question that then arises is, then can the commission, as the members, be held responsible for their decisions that they make that I have to live with, as an abuse of power or whether they do have the power to stop this problem from going because, again, it's not your decision here to issue the permits, but as soon as this is done, I have to go down to the permits counter and now it’s going to perpetuate the lawsuit and I'm not sure, I haven't got an answer to this, that when I go through the appeal's process from here to the next level, whether or not this creates another lawsuit? Because this is a different decision that had nothing to do with what happened in 1994 and has been haunting me, now, it becomes my problem and unfortunately the former owners, that are trying to get out from under this, that you say okay we'll approve the stucco and I go down to the City to get the permit and I don't get it."

• Ms. Coffey indicated that Mr. Schmit could not obtain a permit because he was not a licensed contractor. Mr. Schmit said, "Not a licensed contractor and I have talked to the City and everybody else. The only way that I can possibly get a permit for this building is once the tenants quit their lease I can go in, occupy, get the permits and do the work." Mr. Schmit said that he mentioned that matter to Mr. Pace, but Mr. Pace said that he was not willing to wait for that to happen.

• Mr. Littig inquired if the applicant knew what was beneath the vinyl siding. Mr. Schmit said that there is a "really dilapidated wood siding". Mr. Littig expressed his concerns that the vinyl siding, which is not in compliance, would have to come off, and once it is removed, then the applicant would be in compliance. Mr. Schmit asked some questions, such as what protects the seam boards? Mr. Littig explained, " just part of the dragon here. Trying to get you in compliance first. You have vinyl siding that has put you out of compliance. By the removal of the vinyl siding, that puts you in compliance. I'm not talking about the condition of the house at that point. You then would need to have a protective covering on the house and we would like to help you make an aesthetic and mechanical decision as to what that material would be, Hardiboard or a synthetic stucco system, those are the choices. We are being directed and our suggestions would be the best in your favor. Do you have a problem with either of those?" Mr. Schmit said that the only problem he had was the expense. He said, "I don't have the money to do any of that. I'm going to be hard pressed to find the $1,200-$1,400 to get the materials to put the work on the building. So, another question I've got is whether or not it is within the discretion of this committee to take an economic hardship, if you're saying that it is not, then that brings in another process." Mr. Littig said that the Historic Landmark Commission is "not a financial board; we are an aesthetic board." Mr. Littig once again asked if the applicant would be in compliance if the vinyl siding is removed, and Ms. Giraud said that he would if Mr. Littig was referring to the lawsuit the City has against Mr. Schmit. Mr. Littig told Mr. Schmit that he would not have to bear much expense getting his building into compliance. There was some further discussion regarding the possible materials that could be applied to the exterior of the building.

A short discussion took place as Mr. Schmit once again talked about the recording of the documents when he took over the ownership of the subject property.

• Mr. Wilson inquired if Mr. Schmit knew that the contractor was going to apply vinyl siding to the exterior of the building and if he knew that the vinyl siding did not comply with the City's ordinances. Mr. Schmit said, 'To be right up 'front, which I always am when he told me that he was going to put vinyl siding on that property, I specifically asked him if he had the permits to do that?" Mr. Wilson clarified that the applicant did not know that the material did not comply. Mr. Schmit stated, "I knew because I have been through it before and I wasn't sure as to what he did and I questioned him have you got the permits to put this vinyl siding on there? He assured me that he did." Mr. Schmit talked again about all the citations that were issued and the judgments against him. He continued by saying, "Here's the citizen of Salt Lake City, whether I was in the form of a corporation or now just a private owner. We did what we thought and I think what was reasonable to insure that this property was carried out properly. We checked and he was licensed. I asked if he had permits and he had this little orange envelope tacked with all the I thought was the permit. How far is the responsibility that goes towards the owner to be responsible that the people they hire are doing the job they are supposed to do."

• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked why the applicant did not sue the contractor. Mr.

Schmit said, "Towards the end of construction he disappeared. We tried to locate him. Contacted his partner I showed up in court for the corporation. Three pre-trial conferences. I don't even want to think about the box of stuff. want to try to limit to what you guys have the authority to deal with. But, I think there is a case here that you have an opportunity to put an end to this nightmare for me. It looks like it’s pretty easy for my partners because we anticipate you can approve the siding, but at this point now that I'm familiarized with the planking. I don't want to be limited so I don't want to say I'll put the planking on because I haven't done the research or the background. I have an associate degree in construction so I know how things work and how they’re supposed to be put together. But I do feel a little uneasy putting, as you described it, putting stucco on the whole building. Part of my problem is going with the foam, the cement. then the finish coat." Mr. Schmit pointed out that the building did not have a foundation and with the settling that was taking place, he said he believed the siding would be more resistant to cracking or splitting.

• Mr. Gordon inquired further into the material that was originally on the building. Ms. Giraud said that the rear elevation already has a history of being stuccoed. When he asked the applicant if he planned to do the rear elevation, Mr. Schmit said that the existing stucco is old and crumbling and he knew that it would have to be sealed so it would not deteriorate any further. Mr. Schmit said, 'To me it looks like the easiest way would be for me, and probably the quickest, would be taken off the vinyl siding and underneath there is furring strips on which the vinyl siding was attached and I could take off the vinyl and put up Hardiboard."

There was some discussion whether or not the applicant would be permitted to do one elevation at a time, or if he had to do the entire structure under the permit. The condition of the building was discussed once more. Mr. Schmit reiterated what he had said previously about the permit process, wanting to change the law so a permit could be issued to him, so he could do the work himself. He said that he wanted "to put an end to this. If this is a body that would say 'let’s try to work along'. I look at myself as a reasonable individual."

• Mr. Parvaz said, "The only decision this body can make is about the finish of the building. That is all we can do the limit of our responsibility would be the finish of the building". Mr. Schmit said, "For clarification, was it stated that if you don't have the authority to allow it that it is not within your discretion to allow it?" Several members of the Commission replied together and said, "No".

Executive Session

Mr. Gordon inquired if the permit matter could be discussed in an Architectural Subcommittee and Ms. Coffey said that she believed that would not be appropriate since the Historic Landmark Commission had nothing to do with that issue. Ms. Coffey also said that it would be the decision of Roger Evans, Director of the City's Building Services, to allow Mr. Schmit partial permits, as he completed each phase of the building.

Motion:

Mr. Young moved to accept Staff's recommendations and approve Case No. 009-

01, as presented, based on Staff's findings of fact. This approval will also include the option of using the material called "Hardiboard", as well as synthetic stucco. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 010-01, at 630 East 100 South, by the University 24th Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, represented by L.K. Sorensen Associates, Inc., Architect, requesting to replace the existing glass block and metal windows with new metal windows and stucco panels on the building in the Central City 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 University 24th Ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, represented by Mr. Keith Sorensen of L.K. Sorensen Associates, Inc., Architect, is requesting to replace the existing glass block and steel sash windows with new insulated glass, aluminum sash windows, and stucco panels on the ward building. Mr. Knight added that the proposal would be part of a larger renovation of the entire interior and exterior of the church. He said that the applicant also proposed to clean and repair the exterior brick, remove the wood entrance doors, and install new aluminum and glass replacement doors. The building is located in the Central City Historic District, and is zoned RMF-45, Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District.

Mr. Knight gave a brief history of the building. He said that Alton B. Paulson, a native of Utah was the architect and construction began on the building in 1939 and was dedicated in 1941. Mr. Knight stated that the building was historically known as the "Twelfth Ward" meetinghouse. Mr. Knight indicated that Mr. Paulson design a number of late depression and post World War II buildings in the Art Moderne and modern styles, including the Villa Theater on Highland Drive, Makoff's Department Store on South Temple (now altered), and Petty Ford in Sugar House (now demolished).

Mr. Knight addressed the architecture of the building by saying that the Art Moderne style is relatively rare in Salt Lake City, although good residential examples of the style are found in the Avenues and University Historic Districts, and in the Country Club neighborhood. He noted that the Twelfth Ward building is a rare example in the city of an ecclesiastical building designed in this style.

Mr. Knight presented the proposed work which consists of the following: 1) replace the existing steel sash windows with new aluminum sash windows; 2) the glass block above the windows on the north and east elevations would be removed and the opening filled in with an EIFS (External Insulated Finish System) stucco system in a light brown color; 3) remove the three existing wood entrance doors at the main entrance, east chapel funeral door, and cultural hall, and replace them with aluminum and glass storefront doors with sidelights; 4) repaint and repair the existing exterior masonry; and 5) clean and reseal the exterior brick.

Mr. Knight stated that the glass block formerly above the main entrance, as visible in the file photo and historic photos found in the staff report was removed and replaced with a stucco panel at some time after the documentation for the Central City Historic District was completed in 1994. He pointed out that no Certificates of Appropriateness or building permits are on file for this work. The applicants propose to match the new EIFS panels to the color of this panel.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(1 through 12) Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, which were included in the staff report. He noted that he outlined the most applicable standards in the ordinance.

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;

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

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;

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;

Summary of staff’s discussion: Portions of the proposed work are not in keeping with these standards. Staff believes that the existing glass block is a character-defining feature of the building. The use of glass block was one of the hallmark characteristics of the Art Moderne style. The applicants propose to remove all the remaining glass block on the building. If feasible, the existing glass block should be retained. If new block is necessary, the new block should match the existing in design and size. Staff does not believe

that replacing the block with stucco panels is appropriate. The commission

should address the issue of the glass block above the main entrance that was removed without permits, and either legalize the work that was done or explore an appropriate replacement option with the applicants.

Staff’s finding of fact: The proposed replacement of glass block with EIFS stucco system does not meet standards 2, 5, and 6 because removing the glass block would remove a historic, character-defining feature of the historic building, and the replacement material would not match the old in design and composition. For the same reasons, the prior work above the entrance that was done without permits does not meet the standards of the ordinance.

Summary of staff’s discussion: The existing steel sash windows would be replaced with new aluminum sash in a different configuration than the existing windows. Staff believes that matching the current configuration of the windows with the new windows would be a more appropriate change.

Staffs finding of fact: The proposed replacement of existing windows with new aluminum windows does not meet standards 2 and 6 because the new window configuration would not match the old windows in design.

Summary of staff’s discussion: The existing wood doors appear to be original to the building. The proposed replacement doors are aluminum and glass to match the proposed new windows. If replacement of the doors is necessary, then replacement wood doors of similar design to the historic doors that meet code and accessibility standards should be installed.

Staffs finding of fact: The removal of the historic wood doors and replacement with new metal and glass doors does not meet standard 6, because the new doors would not match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities.

Summary of staff’s discussion: The exterior masonry should be cleaned with the gentlest means possible, such as low pressure water and detergents. Old mortar joints should be duplicated in width and joint profile in the new repainting work.

Staffs findings of fact: The proposed cleaning, repainting, repair and resealing of the exterior masonry meets the standards of the ordinance if the masonry is cleaned with the gentlest means possible, such as low pressure water and detergents, and old mortar joints are duplicated in width and joint profile in the new repainting work

Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the work with the following conditions: 1} the existing glass block should be retained or replaced with new glass block that matches the size and design of the existing block; 2} since the stucco above the entrance doors was installed without a permit, the existing stucco above the entrance should be removed and replaced with glass block to match the historic appearance; 3} the new aluminum replacement windows should match the configuration of the existing windows; 4} the existing wood doors should be repaired if possible. If replacement of the doors is necessary, then replacement wood doors of similar design to the historic doors that meet code and accessibility standards should be installed; and 5) the exterior masonry should be cleaned with the gentlest means possible, such as low pressure water and detergents. Old mortar joints should be duplicated in width and joint profile in the new repointing work."

Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.

Mr. Littig asked if this proposal had been review by the Architectural Subcommittee and Mr. Knight said that it had not because there was a substantial enough change that staff believed that the full Commission at this time should review it.

Since there were no more questions for staff, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Keith Sorensen of L.K. Sorensen Associates, Inc., representing the applicant, was present. He stated that the goal for this project intended to be a minor remodeling project to preserve a valuable building and to make more useful that existing resources.

Mr. Sorensen pointed out that the specific tasks would provide greater energy conservation, improve building accessibility, and eliminate several potential safety hazards. He said that the operable window sashes seldom function; the single glazed windows in the steel sashes and the calking around the perimeter of the windows have deteriorated. Mr. Sorensen stated that the maximum width of the three entrance doors only have a thirty-inch wing and do not comply with the ADA (Americans Disability Act) requirements; it is difficult to carry a casket though the doors on those occasions when the building is used for funeral services. He stated that safety is an issue with the glass blocks in the Cultural Hall area where many activities are held, including basketball. He added that many of them are broken and talked about the ongoing difficulty in maintaining the glass blocks. Mr. Sorensen said that the single-hung windows were widened in accordance with the LOS Church standards.

Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:

• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich commented about the existing doors and inquired if both of the double doors could be opened to carry a casket through the opening. Mr. Sorensen said that is what is being done and added that really was not an issue. Mr. Christensen inquired if there was a solid divider between the two doors. Mr. Sorensen said that there is a solid divider between the two doors on the inside of the building. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the glass blocks could be protected. Mr. Sorensen said that there are screens over them now, but much of the damage was done prior to the installation of the screens. He added that the mortar between the glass blocks has deteriorated. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said

that she believed there was a more sympathetic way of replacing the windows by using higher quality, insulated, units rather than filling and covering the space with stucco. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich reminded the applicant that the glass blocks were a valuable feature to the architecture of the building. Mr. Sorensen talked about the need to comply with the economic issues. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that there are circumstances where the owner has been able to comply with historic standards when a building is located within an historic district. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission must protect contributing buildings in historic districts.

Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich also inquired about the glass block areas above the main entrance that had been filled in with stucco without a permit. Mr. Sorensen said that he did not have any knowledge of that, prior to his discussion with Mr. Knight. He said he asked that question and was told that a large section of the glass blocks fell out of place onto the sidewalk and could have injured anyone walking into the building. Mr. Sorensen implied that in the interest of time and for a safety measure, the opening was filled in with stucco, and that was all he knew about that incidence.

• Mr. Christensen inquired if the non-functional window sashes could be repaired or replace the non-working parts. Mr. Sorensen said that those things could be done but would not change the fact that the windows are all single-glazed and not energy efficient. He added that energy conservation is an economic issue with the owner. Mr. Christensen suggested enhancing the ability of the existing windows to stop the air leakage and to make them functional. Mr. Sorensen said that the long-term maintenance issue would not be resolved. He said that since the windows have leaked for so many years, mildew has formed and created a highly objectionable odor in some areas inside the building

• Mr. Wilson suggested replacing the glass with a double pane glass. Mr. Sorensen said that he did not believe that was enough space to do that within the existing sash sections.

• Mr. Littig said that a properly configured aluminum hopper window would be close to the character of the existing windows. Mr. Sorensen said that their original design was for replacement aluminum hopper windows, but that the owner requested the change to single-hung replacements. Mr. Littig talked about the importance of restoring the architectural features of this building. Mr. Sorensen said that he understood because he is a member of the Taylorsville City Council was and was an advisor to the Taylorsville historic preservation committee.

• Ms. Rowland inquired about the insulating value of glass block versus the stucco panels. She talked about the natural light coming through the glass blocks and cutting down the use of artificial lighting. Mr. Sorensen said that he did not bring any of those comparisons with him. However, he said that the applicant did a day lighting study and the available information from manufactures suggest that glass block does not have the insulating capabilities of an insulated wall and in some circumstances, have significantly Jess. Mr. Sorensen said that other than Sundays, the building was primarily used in the evenings, so day lighting would not be that much of an issue. Mr. Littig said that glass blocks make a nice "lantern light" that could be seen from the outside in the evenings.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz 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. Knight said that Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested citizen, could not attend the meeting, but wanted to have her E-mailed letter submitted and read for the record, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight said that Ms. Cromer indicated that the glass blocks on this building are part of its character and stucco does not convey the same properties as the glass blocks.

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

Executive Session

Mr. Littig said that there have been other LOS Church buildings where windows were replaced very successfully after some communication with the participating parties, and he believed that this project should be treated the same way. After Ms. Giraud mentioned single-hung windows, Mr. Littig said that he believed that they would not be a good choice. He said that hopper design thermal pane windows could be used in the same pattern as the original windows. Mr. Young said that the same design could also be done in aluminum. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich agreed and said that there were some high quality manufacturers of aluminum windows available that could match the existing windows.

Mr. Christensen said that he had also seen aluminum windows that had no profile and were not very attractive. He also recommended that the applicant repair and retain the one unusual window that is on the front elevation. Mr. Christensen said it would be nice if some evidence remained with the building as to what the original windows were. He indicated that he had a problem with removing the glass blocks because that was an element he really enjoyed in Mr. Paulson's work. He circulated some photographs of another LOS Church building in the city that Mr. Paulson designed, which was an "international style" building where he used the glass block design as a prominent feature. Mr. Christensen stated that it seemed to him that the glass blocks were a major design element used by the architect. He suggested that the damaged glass blocks be replaced and all the glass blocks be protected from further damage.

The discussion continued regarding the glass blocks and the replacement of them.

Motion:

Ms. Rowland moved to adopt staff's recommendations for Case No. 010-01, based

on staff's findings of fact. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

There was a short discussion regarding the wording of the motion. Ms. Rowland accepted the amendments to the motion.

Amended final motion:

Ms. Rowland moved that the Historic Landmark Commission adopt staff's recommendation for Case No. 010-01, as presented, based on staff's findings of fact, with the addition that insulating glass could be used in the replacement windows and that the one original window on the front of the building be repaired and retained. Mr. Young's second still stood. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mayor's Conference on Preservation.

Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich reported that she and Ms. Mickelsen met with Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, the City's Planning Director, to discuss the future Mayor's Conference on Preservation. She said that she believed the Mayor had a smaller conference in mind rather than what was recommended by the Historic Landmark Commission. She said that he believed there would only be about 100 people attending. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she thought there would be anywhere between 250 to 400 people interested in attending. She said that the Mayor thought it would be best to postpone the conference until May of 2002, due to the Olympics being held in Salt Lake City in February of 2002. Ms. Mickelsen stated that after reviewing a very "ambitious" agenda, they realized that the date would have to be pushed back. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she suggested that Preservation Staff members attend future conference planning meetings to provide information to Mr. Goldsmith and the Mayor on the Commission's work.

Ms. Giraud also talked about a rehabilitation conference, sponsored by the Utah Heritage Foundation to be held at Judge Memorial High School in June that would be directed to owners of historic properties. A short discussion followed.

Adjournment of the meeting.

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

Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:40P.M.