May 7, 2003

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 David Fitzsimmons, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simon, Doug Wheelwright, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.

Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. Noreen Heid, and Lee White were excused.

Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.

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

An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes of the April 2, 2003 meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Parvaz, voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen abstained. Ms. Heid, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR

Mr. Louis Zunguze, Salt Lake City Planning Director, introduced the subject of the Historic Landmark Commission meeting in Room 326 of the City and County Building, rather than Room 126. He noted that members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment chose to move their meetings to Room 326. Mr. Zunguze mentioned that Room 326 was a much more comfortable room in which to meet. Mr. Zunguze pointed out that he wanted to find how the Historic Landmark Commission members felt about the proposed move and to discuss the adjustments that would have to be made. Mr. Zunguze added that the Commission did not have to make a decision at this time.

Ms. Giraud said that due to some scheduling conflicts, the Historic Landmark Commission would have to meet on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. She stated that the results of her E-Mail to the Commissioners, most members indicated they wanted to remain meeting in Room 126. She added that some believed Mondays would be a more convenient day in which to meet.

Mr. Littig said that the Historic Landmark Commission was a very constructive commission and he liked the association with the applicants around the table. He also said that Room 326 was more formal, and had a "courtroom atmosphere", being separated from the applicants. Ms. Mickelsen stated that she has been on "both sides of the table" and the more formal atmosphere is intimidating to an applicant. However, she pointed out that Room 326 has a better sound system. She also said that holding the meetings on Mondays would not be good for her. Mr. Ashdown said that to him it was more a matter of date and time, rather than the place to hold the meetings.

After further discussion, Mr. Simonsen suggested to delay this conversation until the end of the meeting after the public hearings were held. The members of the Commission agreed.

(Ms. Rowland arrived at 4:10P.M.)

Mr. Zunguze announced that the Planning Division would be creating a newsletter that would comrr1unicate planning issues. He pointed out that there would be featured articles depicting such issues as tips for doing business in the City, and other issues. Mr. Zunguze said that there would be a news section regarding any new ordinances, and other pertinent matters. He said he hoped that the members of the Commission would be a source of information for the newsletters. Mr. Zunguze said it will be a good way to communicate with the public. He encouraged any ideas and suggestions on the layout of the newsletter. Mr. Zunguze said that he would welcome an article now and again from the Historic Landmark Commission.

Mr. Simonsen inquired about the size of the newsletter. Mr. Zunguze said that it depended on how much time the Planning Staff wanted to put in, but perhaps it would be one page, back to back. Mr. Zunguze indicated that he wanted to make it as effective as possible without being too cumbersome. Mr. Simonsen asked if Mr. Zunguze saw a lot of content for the newsletter coming from the Planning Staff or would it rely on the boards, commissions, or others on the outside to provide resources for it. Mr. Zunguze said that the idea is to strike a balance, but primarily it would be weighted towards the Planning Staff.

Mr. Zunguze encouraged corr1rr1unicative issues that the Historic Landmark Commission may have and invited any member of the Commission to provide such information. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commissioners had discussed the need for an outreach program on preservation issues. He said that it would be nice if a portion of each newsletter focused on preservation issues.

Mr. Zunguze spoke of the distribution system. He said that it would be put on the website, available by e-mail, and a general mailing through the community council process.

Mr. Simonsen asked if anyone else had any questions and comments. There were none.

COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION

Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.

Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, asked that the Historic Landmark Commission become more sensitive to issues of massing, height, and overall size of new construction, particularly in the more "humble" areas of the Capitol Hill district. She pointed out that one of the most wonderful things about living in an historic district is the closeness that develops within the community. Ms. Mangold said that any inappropriate structure causes a great deal of destruction to that neighborhood feeling.

Ms. Mangold gave an example of inappropriate new construction which is on Center Street and Apricot Avenue. She noted that the Historic Landmark Commission approved the project a while ago. Ms. Mangold reported that she has only heard of the dismay from the neighbors about the massiveness of the structure.

Ms. Mangold asked that the Historic Landmark Commission advise applicants early in the process that if they are going to build in an historic district, that they should consider not maximizing the allowable size of the structure for the lot. She added that they would integrate into the neighborhood more easily if something more modest would be constructed.

Ms. Mangold thanked the Commissioners for their time.

As there were no other public comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded into the public hearing portion of the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Case No. 008-03. at 1127 E. Second Avenue. by Kimble Shaw requesting approval to construct a 1-1/2 story garage at the rear of his property and change the position of concrete steps from his house to the sidewalk. The property is located in the Avenues 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 gave the following overview of the project: Mr. Kimble Shaw, architect, requested approval to construct a 1-1/2 story garage at the rear of his house, to remove the existing steps providing access from the public sidewalk to his yard, and to rebuild new steps at the east end of his yard.

Mr. Shaw's renovation project at this time includes an addition to the house, two garages, removing the existing driveway that leads from the street to the rear yard, and the replacement of the concrete steps. The addition is the result of a fire that occurred in January that has since made the house uninhabitable. Once Mr. Shaw considered what was necessary to repair the house, he decided to move forward with other changes, such as constructing the new garages and altering the site features. The staff determined that the addition and the second garage "Garage 2" could be approved administratively because they met the requirements of the design guidelines and would not be visible from the street.

Mr. Shaw will use the attic space as storage. Staff determined that the proposed garage, "Garage 1", constituted an accessory structure greater than one story, and required a review by the full Commission, according to Historic Landmark Commission policy.

Mr. Shaw has already removed the steps from the sidewalk to his yard because the grade is steep, and has caused the steps to crack and warp, which became a maintenance problem. He intends to remove the existing drive at the east side of the property so that his new garages will be accessed from "T" Street rather than Second Avenue. The new steps will extend from the sidewalk to his yard at this newly landscaped location.

The Planning Division staff required Mr. Shaw to obtain Historic Landmark Commission approval to alter the position of the front steps because the issue of walkways is addressed in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. Mr. Shaw's proposed plan alters a site feature to the extent that Staff determined a full Commission review was necessary.

Mr. Shaw attended the Architectural Subcommittee meeting on April 23, 2003. Messrs. Gordon, Parvaz and Littig represented the Historic Landmark Commission. The Architectural Subcommittee stated that they were in favor of forwarding a positive opinion of the alteration of the steps and the garage to the Historic Landmark Commission.

Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings for the garage based on Section 21A.34.020.34.030(H)(1-4) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:

H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing

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. Scale and Form.

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

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

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

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

Summary of Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Because the project is a garage located behind the house, its relationship to a street is irrelevant. The height of the proposed garage would meet the zoning requirement that accessory structures cannot exceed 17 feet to the midpoint between the eave and the ridgeline of the roof. The garage would be substantially lower in height, width, and scale of the house. Although the roof pitch would be steeper than that of Mr. Shaw's house, it would not be inconsistent with the historic forms of accessory structures. The proportions of the elevations would be typical of garages of this square footage. The applicant meets this requirement.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

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

structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances

and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

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

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The openings of the proposed garage will be symmetrically placed and compatible with the residential surrounding, and in scale with the primary structure. Although two single doors rather than one door are preferred for garages in local historic districts, Mr. Shaw stated at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting that he could not get the turning radius he needed from the driveway if two single doors are used. The materials are designed for compatibility with the house and have been approved for numerous garages in the historic districts. For garages, "entrance porches and other projections" are not issues. The Staff found that the applicant met this standard.

3. Relationship to Street.

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

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

c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually

related in its orientation toward the street; and

d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: Because the garage has no relationship to the street, Staff found that this standard did not pertain to this project.

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).

Staffs discussion and finding of fact: There are no subdivision issues with this application.

Ms. Giraud stated that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City provide the following standards for reviewing accessory structures:

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

Staffs discussion and findings of fact: Staff found that the proposed garage would be compatible with the primary structure, in that the materials, scale, and fenestration would be in character with the applicant's home, and does not compete visually with the house.

Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should also make findings for the alteration of the steps on Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G)(2 and 6) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:

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

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 and finding of fact: Mr. Shaw has already removed the steps, and thus does not meet this standard.

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

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Mr. Shaw removed the steps because the concrete had deteriorated and the short but steep grade of the steps had caused them to warp. He plans to rebuild steps similar to those he removed at the east end of the street frontage of his property, and then construct a sidewalk leading from the reconstructed steps to the steps of this house. The progression of steps from the sidewalk to steps that lead to the front porch of the home would form a series of "platforms" and is a character-defining feature of the Avenues Historic district. While the location of the original steps will differ, Mr. Shaw will match them in design and materials. The sense of a progression of platforms will be maintained.

Ms. Giraud stated that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City provide the following standards for reviewing accessory structures:

Walkways: Typically, a "progression" of walking experiences is encountered along the street. This begins with a walkway that leads from the sidewalk to each building entry; this in turn is occasionally punctuated by a serried of steps. Dictated by the topography, the walk often slopes, sometimes quite steeply. Because the Avenues was plotted on a grid, and many architectural and landscape features appear consistent, this system of walks contributes strongly to the character of the district. This progression of entry elements is important, and of these, the walkway itself is an extremely significant element. This progression should be preserved.

Ms. Giraud indicated that the "Design Standards for the Avenues Historic District" cite the following standards for streetscape features:

13.2 Provide a walk to the primary building entry from the public sidewalk. The walkway should be distinct from any driveway. Concrete is the dominant material; however, other materials, including modular pavers, also are appropriate.

13.3 Minimize the use of cub cuts in the Avenues District. In an effort to preserve the character of the sidewalk and the adjoining streetscape, avoid installing new curb cuts, whenever feasible. Historically, the use of curb cuts was quite limited. New curb cuts will interrupt the continuity of the sidewalks, and will potentially destroy historic paving materials where it exists.

Staff's discussion and finding of fact: Mr. Shaw's new steps will provide a walk to the primary building entry from the public sidewalk in the typical straight, angular pattern. Because Mr. Shaw is changing the access to his garage from Second Avenue to "T" Street, he will be removing the existing driveway on the east side of this house. No new curb cuts will be created as a result of moving the steps. Staff found that the applicant met this standard.

Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "The Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve Mr. Shaw's plans as submitted."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.

Mr. Parvaz said that it is a very common feature in the Avenues Historic District to have two sets of stairs in front, in a straight line progression, one from the sidewalk and one going into the building. He believed that the steps should be rebuilt in the same location as they were originally. Ms. Giraud said that she focused on the idea of the platform and it would still be maintained in Mr. Shaw's application. Mr. Parvaz said he did not think that was a strong argument. He stated that the designer of this building and site designed them so there is continuity from the sidewalk into the yard and into the entrance of building. Mr. Parvaz expressed his concern about setting a precedent for further cases.

Mr. Littig inquired if there was a response from the neighbors when notified. Ms. Giraud assured the Commission that the neighbors were sent notification and Staff had not received any response.

Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if there was a previous garage in the same location as the subject garage. Ms. Giraud could not answer and said she was not sure.

Mr. Ashdown asked what was behind the house besides the garage. Ms. Giraud said that there is a little drive that accesses "T" Street. She talked about the conglomeration of garages that vary in age and design servicing people whose houses front onto Second Avenue.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Kimble Shaw, the applicant, was present. He said that Staff had done an outstanding job of presenting the project and had been very thorough. Mr. Shaw said that he was here to answer any questions.

Mr. Shaw said that he disagreed on the sidewalk progression. He said that those steps have been very difficult to maneuver for older people, for snow removal, and for general maintenance. Mr. Shaw said by rebuilding the stairs in the location to the east, four or five risers could be eliminated, which would make it easier to reach the front door.

Mr. Simonsen 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 further about the stairway relocation and the elimination of some risers. Mr. Shaw responded by saying that the topography of the land slopes from east to west. He added that some risers could be eliminated because the new stairway would be higher on the slope. Mr. Shaw said that the land slopes somewhere between two and three feet in the forty-foot frontage of the property. Mr. Christensen asked if the applicant planned to construct the new steps similar to the way they were originally with concrete walls on each side. Mr. Shaw replied that the steps would just be cut in and landscaping would border the sidewalk. Mr. Christensen commented that there was nothing wrong with relocating the stairway, but he said that he liked the historic feel of the original stairway. Mr. Shaw said that he would like to accentuate the river rock on each side of the steps up to the porch. He said that he planned to concentrate on the landscaping. Mr. Christensen asked if the windows and the French doors for the garage were encased in metal. Mr. Shaw said that the windows and French doors would be painted wood, trying to match the existing. Mr. Christensen said that they look like there was an attempt to match them to the new addition of the house.

• Ms. Mickelsen clarified that the addition to the house was not part of this application because it was approved administratively. Ms. Giraud pointed out that Staff approves many additions administratively. She noted that the size and fenestration of the proposed garage was consistent with the house and there was no reason why the addition should be part of the application.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

Mr. Ashdown said that he liked the edging with the square lines on the staircase. He added that without it, the look of the staircase would be more suited for country modern or a newer neighborhood. Mr. Littig said that he would like to see the curbing next to the sidewalk and continue up the sides of the stairway to give it that finished look. Ms. Rowland also talked about the curbing. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that it did not look like the curbing continued up the steps in the old photograph.

Mr. Parvaz said that he had not seen many structures in the district where the step progression in front of the house was not in a straight line going up to the entry. He thought the staircases were some major features of the house. Mr. Parvaz indicated that he saw no reason to move the stairway to the east. He again talked about setting a precedent, which he did not want to do.

Mr. Christensen said that in the training given to members of the Commission, it was stated that the Historic Landmark Commission could set a precedent by decisions that are made. He said that many people have changed their staircase entrance.

Mr. Fitzsimmons said that the proposal would change the character of the house from the street edge, but the house is the overwhelming object on the site.

Mr. Gordon stated that apparently the applicant had problems with the location of the original steps. He talked about the ground being a little flatter over where the existing driveway is located. Mr. Parvaz said that he did not think that was an issue.

Mr. Simonsen expressed his concern for the safety issue of the steep stairways without handrails especially if there is family member who may be aging. Ms. Giraud said that Staff has allowed handrails administratively to alleviate the safety issue. She said that the building inspector would point out if a safety issue occurs on the size of the risers and the protrusion of a handrail if the stairway is moved to the east.

The discussion continued regarding the matter at hand.

Ms. Giraud recommended that if the Commission believed that moving the staircase would be changing an important character-defining feature, then findings should be made to support that decision. Mr. Simonsen concurred that the Commission should focus on the issues and not the precedence.

Ms. Giraud suggested that perhaps the applicant would be willing to rebuild the stairway in the original location, and a second set of stairs where the driveway now exists, as well. Some Commissioners were amenable with that suggestion. Ms. Giraud said that since the applicant would bear the expenses, it would be wise to ask him if he would be agreeable to that proposition. There also was a suggestion that a ramp could be constructed in the location of the new staircase, rather than a second set of stairs.

Since there were additional questions for the applicant, it was a general consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting to public comment. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting.

Mr. Gordon asked the applicant if the sidewalk could be sloped enough to eliminate the second set of stairs and build a ramp. Mr. Shaw said that was an option he had considered.

Mr. Shaw said he did not believe changing the location of his front steps would have an effect on other properties within the district. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that changing or eliminating any character-defining feature on any house within the district would have an effect on the entire district. Mr. Shaw asked if there was no room for improvement in the district. He talked about the mistakes that were made in the site plans for his property because of the topography. Mr. Shaw added that it would have been easier if the original sidewalk had been on the east side of the property. Mr. Parvaz said that the designer emphasized the great entrance into the building with the steps leading to the front entry.

There was further discussion regarding some suggestions by Commissioners of other ways the contours of the land could be handled.

As there were no additional questions, Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting to public comment.

Mr. Ashdown said that in regards to the ordinance it states that 21A.34.020(G)(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." He inquired if that was reason enough not to approve this request.

Mr. Parvaz stated that the applicant could have an easy access and still keep the historic character of the front steps.

Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission clearly needed to determine whether or not the front staircase is a character-defining feature of the property rather than the district. He then asked as a point of order if the motions for this case should be separated.

Ms. Giraud said that they could be. She then cautioned the Commission that the findings needed to tie in with the ordinance. Ms. Giraud cited in Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G)(2) of the zoning ordinance that needed to be incorporated in the wording of the motion.

Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion and suggested that the Commission first make a motion on the proposed stairway and then make another for the garage.

First motion regarding the stairway:

In the matter of Case No. 008-03, Mr. Parvaz moved to accept Staff's findings of fact but not the Staff's recommendation. The applicant should rebuild the staircase where it was located originally, based on the photograph included in the staff report. The stairs in front, in a straight line progression, one from the sidewalk and one going into the building is a character-defining feature of this property. At the discretion of the applicant, a second set of stairs or a ramp may be constructed on the east side of the property in place of the existing driveway.

Mr. Ashdown suggested inserting the ordinance reference into the motion. Mr. Parvaz amended his motion.

First amended motion regarding the stairway:

In the matter of Case No. 008-03, Mr. Parvaz moved to accept Staff's findings of fact but not the Staff's recommendation. The applicant should rebuild the staircase where it was located originally, based on the photograph included in the staff report. Referencing Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G)(2) of the Salt Lake Zoning Ordinance, it states, "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". The stairs in front, in a straight line progression, one from the sidewalk and one going into the building is a character-defining feature of this property and should not be eliminated. At the discretion of the applicant, a second set of stairs or a ramp may be constructed on the east side of the property in place of the existing driveway. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion.

Mr. Ashdown indicated that he was really concerned about an appeal to the Land Use Appeals Board. He wondered if the Commission should table the motion to try to research how many other homes in the district have this kind of step progression.

Ms. Mickelsen pointed out that Mr. Shaw's home might be the only one in his neighborhood where the front steps would be angular to the steps going up to the front entry, if this request is granted. She believed that the front steps are a real design feature. Mr. Fitzsirr1mons said that the stairway is a central part of the character of the house.

Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission should focus on the features of this property rather than how would the property affect the district or the neighborhood if the front staircase is eliminated.

Ms. Giraud pointed out that there is language in support of the motion in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.

Ms. Giraud said that if this case is appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board, she did not think the Board would be as concerned about how many other homes had this step progression as how closely did the Historic Landmark Commission tie the motion to the standards of the ordinance and what findings were made.

Mr. Parvaz amended his motion once more.

Second amended and final motion regarding the stairway:

In "the matter of Case No. 008-03, Mr. Parvaz moved to accept Staff's findings of fact but not the Staff's recommendation. The Historic Landmark Commission finds that the applicant should rebuild the staircase where it was located originally, according to the photograph included in the staff report. The front stairs, in a straight line progression, one from the sidewalk and one going into the building is a character defining feature on this property and should not be eliminated. These findings are based on the following:

Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G}(2} of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, where it states, "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";

Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G}(6} of the Salt Lake City Zoning, where it states, "Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall 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".

In the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City it states, "Typically, a 'progression' of walking experiences is encountered along the street.

This begins with a walkway that leads from the sidewalk to each building entry; this in turn is occasionally punctuated by a series of steps. Dictated by the topography, the walk often slopes, sometimes quite steeply. Because the Avenues was plotted on a grid, and many architectural and landscape features appear consistent, this system of walks contributes strongly to the character of the district. This progression of entry elements is important, and of these, the walkway itself is an extremely significant element. This progression should be preserved".

Also in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, Sections 13.2 and 13.3 states the following in the chapter called "Design Standards for the Avenues Historic District":

13.2Provide a walk to the primary building entry from the public sidewalk. The walkway should be distinct from any driveway. Concrete is the dominant material; however, other materials, including modular pavers, also are appropriate.

13.3 Minimize the use of curb cuts in the Avenues district. In an effort to preserve the character of the sidewalk and the adjoining streetscape, avoid installing new curb cuts, whenever feasible. Historically, the use of curb cuts was quite limited. New curb cuts will interrupt the continuity of the sidewalks, and will potentially destroy historic paving materials where it exists.

Further, at the discretion of the applicant, a second set of stairs or a ramp may be constructed on the east side of the property in place of the existing driveway. Mr. Fitzsimmons second still stood. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Mr. Simonsen asked that the garage be addressed.

Mr. Christensen said that he liked the massing and the design of the garage and the materials would be appropriate. He added that it would not overwhelm the house.

Motion regarding the garage:

Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 008-03 to approve the request to construct the garage, as proposed, based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation as contained in the staff report. This proposed structure would meet the form and massing requirements, not only of the general zoning law but it would fit the character of the historic district. Further, the Historic Landmark Commission allowed the exception to the usual placement of two single garage doors to use a single, double-wide, door because of the difficulty of the siting of the garage. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 009-03. in Liberty Park. by Rick Graham. Director of the Salt Lake City Department of Public Services. requesting approval to construct a Paralympics Legacy Monument near the Rotary Play Park. Liberty Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark.

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 mentioned that the case number appearing in the staff report was incorrect.

Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project: This is a request to construct a monument in Liberty Park honoring the 2002 Paralympic Winter Games. Liberty Park is located between 500-700 East and 900-1300 South Streets. The entire park is listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, and is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Isaac Chase House and the Chase Mill are also individually listed on both registers.

Liberty Park sits on land that was originally on the outskirts of Salt Lake City. The land was subdivided in the "Big Field" survey of 1847, which distributed farming plots to the first settlers of the Salt Lake Valley. Isaac Chase was the first owner of this plot of land where he built his house {which now houses the Utah State Folk Arts Program) and a gristmill (which also still stands). Brigham Young obtained the property from Isaac Chase in 1860. His estate sold the land to Salt Lake City for development of a city park in 1881. The park opened on June 17, 1882, which was the anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill.

Landmark Design and the City Parks Division completed a major Scoping Plan for the park in 1998. There was extensive public input during this process and the general tone of which was that there should not be major changes made to Liberty Park, but that the physical infrastructure was in need of major maintenance. The Historic Landmark Commission echoed this stance when the Scoping Plan was presented to the Commission on April 15, 1998. Over the past five years, most of the goals of the Scoping Plan have been achieved.

The Scoping Plan identified the various monuments and fountains in the park as important elements contributing to the character of the landscape. The plan noted that concrete and stone would be the predominant building materials for the monuments, along with metals such as bronze and cast iron. The report encouraged the preservation of the existing monuments, and included a general statement that new elements in the park should be compatible with the character of the existing landscape.

In June 2001, the Commission approved the construction of a new playground in the northeast quadrant of the park designed for children of all abilities. Constructed with funding from the Rotary Clubs International, the play park has a Paralympic theme and was dedicated during the Paralympic Winter Games in March of 2002.

Mr. Knight pointed out that the City, in partnership with the Salt Lake Organizing Committee (SLOC), is proposing to place a number of monuments to the games at various games-related locations in the city. He said that this monument would commemorate the 2002 Paralympic Winter Games. Mr. Knight indicated that SLOC would be designing and funding the project, while the City would be providing the site and the responsibility of future maintenance.

Mr. Knight described the proposed monument as follows: The monument would consist of three concrete pylons made of terrazzo or concrete, with accompanying metal logo and text panels inserted into the concrete. Two similarly shaped benches of the same material would be placed nearby. All of the elements would be located within a concrete circle 24 feet in diameter, situated at the junction of two existing concrete paths immediately east of the Rotary Paralympic Play Park. The circle would be paved with alternating bands of granite or concrete pavers in corr1plementary colors.

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H)(1-4) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing 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 pertains to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape, as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the city.

1. Scale and Form.

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

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

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

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

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: In this case, the surrounding streetscape of the proposed monument is the park landscape. The size and scale of the proposed new monument is similar to the size and scale of other monuments in the park.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

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

structures and streetscape;

b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;

c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances

and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: The design of the new monument is contemporary, but the pylon form and use of benches are typical of monuments constructed during the historic period. The materials to be used, concrete (or terrazzo), metal, and stone are typical for monuments in Liberty Park. The colors to be used are subtle and appropriate for the park setting.

4. Relationship to Street.

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

d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian

improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: In this case, the park landscape is considered the streetscape. Walls of continuity and the directional expression of principal elevation are not strong issues in this case because the proposed structure is a monument in a park setting. The siting of the monument and the rhythm of spacing between the monument and other park elements is similar to other elements within the historic landscape, as are the streetscape-pedestrian improvements proposed.

Staff's discussion and findings of fact: This standard is not applicable to this application. Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Based upon the preceding findings of fact, Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed. Staff further recommends that the Commission delegate to Staff approval of any minor revisions that may be necessary as part of the completion of construction drawings for this project."

Mr. Knight stated that representatives from Landmark Design and the City who could explain more about the design of the monument were present.

• Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.

Mr. Ashdown inquired if there was already a monument close to this proposed site. Mr. Knight said that there was nothing within the play park itself, as far as he understood, that denotes the Paralympics, other than a flat logo. Mr. Ashdown said that there was also a water feature. Mr. Ashdown expressed his concern of having too many monuments. Mr. Knight concurred that could be a potential issue.

Mr. Gordon said this monument would be more of a meditated and informational space, rather than a playground.

Mr. Parvaz clarified that the SLOC is paying for the monument but the City will have to maintain it. Mr. Knight said that was correct. He indicated that the agreement is the same as with other Olyrr1pic legacy monuments.

Mr. Fitzsimmons asked about the distance between the play park and the proposed site for the monument. Mr. Knight said that it would be approximately 100 feet away. Mr. Fitzsimmons was concerned about the proposed monument not being conducive against the backdrop of the colorful playground equipment.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant and representative to come forward to address the Commission.

Mr. Rick Graham, Director of Public Services for Salt Lake City, the applicant, was present. Mr. Graham said that Public Services was responsible for the park system in Salt Lake City. He introduced Mr. Mark Vlasic from Landmark Design who is under contract with SLOC to design and be on the project management team. The City will partner and give permission for the proposed monument to be installed at Liberty Park and then SLOC will be the funding and construction partner for this project. After the monument has been given to Salt Lake City as a gift, the City will maintain it for the duration.

Mr. Graham said that the City was very happy with SLOG's willingness to provide this gift. He said that the City sees it as a gift and as a legacy to the Paralympic Winter Games. Mr. Graham pointed out that as far as he knew, there is no other Olympic sponsored city that has ever recognized the legacy of the Paralympics in this way, so Salt Lake City will be the first city to have something left for the public and visitors to enjoy that recounts and is a remembrance of those Paralympic activities. He said that the playground has its own theme and would not conflict with the monument. Mr. Graham indicated that the purpose of the Rotary Play Park is a boundless play feature that anyone of any physical ability can participate in and join in the activities. He stated that the City believed that this legacy plaza will be a complement to the play park and should be located in Liberty Park.

Mr. Graham said that the monument would depict what the Paralympic Winter Games were, what the activities and events were, and for the visitor would explain what the Paralyrr1pics are so a visitor would be able to see the whole story from start to finish. He reiterated that the City supported this project and was appreciative of the gift.

Mr. Vlasic used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. As Mr. Graham stated, Landmark Design has been contracted by SLOC to oversee this project. He corr1plimented Mr. Knight for his concise explanation of the monument. Mr. Vlasic said that it would be a small plaza that would be a piece of landscape art expressing the legacy of the Paralympic Winter Games.

Mr. Vlasic explained the project in the following manner:

The 24-foot plaza would have five main elements. Three of the elements will be these elliptical shaped memorials. They would be in three different heights ranging from just over two feet to about six feet high. Text is being prepared to tell the story of the games. Each one focuses on a different aspect of the Paralympic Games. It will be a history of the Paralympics. The second one will focusing more on the venues, and the type of events that took place, and the third one will focus on the games, themselves, what came out of the games, and the glory of the Paralympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City. The text elements will be extruded. It was recommended to the City not to use Braille because it has a short life.

In addition to those three elements, there would be two benches that keep the same general elliptical form but modified somewhat to accommodate seating so one could see the drawings on the bottom. The shape focuses inward in order to accommodate people's legs and should fit well to a human body.

This monument could attract skate boarders, so metal nubs will be integrated into it to prevent and discourage that sort of activity.

The feet would have the icons of the three types of games that took place, that being the downhill, cross country biathlon, and sledge hockey.

Bronzed metal would be the first choice. Other possible materials would include a space-aged product, which would hold up very well to abuse, and Granite or

another stone material that could be etched. The plaza would have concrete on the edges in tones of gray.

The signage would only be about two or three high maximum so someone in a wheel chair could read it almost at eye level. The emphasis will be put on the disabled bodied person and to allow them to interact with the memorial.

Mr. Vlasic noted that the pathway is not an historic element, but was built last year partly because of the success of the play park. He said that on any given day, there are literally hundreds of people that utilize the play park.

Mr. Vlasic said that the Parks Division has been improving the park with irrigation systems and will have to be modified around the edges of the proposed monument.

Mr. Vlasic stated that the final design might be slightly different; it might be simpler. He said that due to the budget, the benches may have to be phased out and incorporate the same benches one sees all around Liberty Park, perhaps without a back to keep the "open" appearance.

Mr. Vlasic said that he would be happy to answer any questions.

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

• Mr. Fitzsimmons led the discussion by asking if there was accessible parking nearby with curb cuts to accommodate wheel chairs. Mr. Vlasic pointed out on the site plan the nearby accessible parking, as well as the restrooms. He said that the City's focus would be on making this memorial accessible to disabled persons in wheel chairs and to the blind.

• Mr. Littig inquired how wide the pathways were and if they would accommodate pedestrians, as well as bicycles. Mr. Vlasic said that they were ten feet wide, which is standard. Mr. Littig pointed out that there could be wear patterns in the lawn, due to some of the protruding pieces of the proposed monument. He asked if people in wheel chairs would have any trouble getting around the planned monument. Mr. Vlasic said that the same issue was discussed with the Rotary Play Park and lawn is an ADA (Americans Disability Act) accessible material.

• Mr. Ashdown said that he was glad the designers would look at the potential abuse by skate boarders. He said that anything that sticks out would be a temptation for skate boarders. Mr. Vlasic said that something will be done to discourage abuse.

• Mr. Christensen asked if they are studying which materials would best hold up to graffiti. Mr. Vlasic said that coated concrete would most likely be used which is standard in most parks. Mr. Littig made a suggestion of how polished concrete could be used.

• Mr. Parvaz inquired if there would be lighting around the proposed monument. Mr. Vlasic said that the monument would be rather a subdued area and do not see it as nighttime destination. He mentioned that there is lighting at the play park and area lighting around the park itself.

Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.

Mr. Knight indicated that Staff received a comment from Mr. Ralph Pahnke, a property owner in the neighborhood, who suggested that planting trees would be more appropriate, as a memorial to the Paralympic Winter Games, rather than constructing a monument.

Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.

Executive Session

Mr. Christensen stated that he really liked the idea of having a Paralympic monument in the city. He said that his mother-in-law volunteered for the Olympics and was assigned to the Paralympics and gained an appreciation for the special role that those athletes played, not only in the games, but as role models.

Mr. Parvaz asked about adding other monuments in Liberty Park. He inquired if monuments were recommended in the master plan. Mr. Knight said that he did not believe there was anything in the master plans about adding "x" amount of monuments in the park. Mr. Knight said that there are a large variety of monuments in the park, such as the Chase Mill, the World War II monuments, and just pieces of art. Mr. Knight pointed out that Liberty Park comprises over 80 acres of land. There was further discussion regarding monuments placed in other city parks.

Mr. Littig said he was concerned about the changes that would be made to the final project. He added that the proposal may be much different than what was reviewed at this meeting. There was an exchange of ideas regarding this possibility.

Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion. Motion:

Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 009-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the application for a 2002 Paralympic Winter Games monument in Liberty Park is consistent with zoning and would be an appropriate addition to the park, as long as the final product is similar in massing, scale, and style to that which was presented at this meeting. If the final proposal is considerably different, then the Planning Director is to consider that issue, and if necessary, the project would return to the Historic Landmark Commission for a full review and final approval. However, if the changes are not major, it could be approved in final format by Staff. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

Case No. 010-03. at 550 North 200 West. by Jim Adamson. requesting approval to construct a new single-family house in the Capitol Hill Historic District.

This case was postponed.

Case No. 011-03. at 545 East 700 South. by Jim Shaw. requesting approval to construct a new single-family house 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.

Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project: Mr. Jim Shaw, of Shaw Homes, is requesting approval to build a new house, of approximately 1,151 square feet on a corner lot. The lot is zoned RMF-30, the purpose of which is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of housing types of a low-density nature, including multifarr1ily housing. The lot is located in the Central City Historic District.

The subject lot is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of 700 South and Park Street. A single-family dwelling occupied the property until it was demolished in 1989.

HLC MINUTES- 5/7/2003Page 21

The property now lies vacant. Prior to 1983, Park Street was a private street and the west property line of the subject lot went to the centerline of the right-of-way. At that time the subject lot was 41.25 feet wide. In 1983, Salt Lake City reconstructed Park Street with the assistance of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and the western ten feet of the subject parcel was dedicated to Salt Lake City as a public right-of-way. This is the reason for the relatively narrow width of the existing lot.

Mr. Knight described the proposal in the following manner: Mr. Shaw is proposing to construct a one-story house, 23'-8" wide by 56'-0" deep. The building would have a hipped, asphalt shingle roof, with two small projecting gables on the front and back. A front and back porch are proposed, with wood columns, rail, and trim. The primary wall material would be fiber cement lap and shingle siding, the windows would be vinyl with fiber cement trim, and the soffits would be cedar plywood.

Stylistically, the building is similar to the many small bungalow dwellings that were constructed in the Central City Historic District during the historic period.

On March 17, 2003, Mr. Shaw obtained a variance from the Board of Adjustment for a reduced corner and interior side yard setbacks due to the size of the lot. With the exception of the items covered in the variance, this project conforms to the base yard and bulk requirements of the RMF-30 zone. [The lot requirements were included in the staff report.]

Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H)(1-4) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance:

Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing 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. Scale and Form.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Knight stated that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City also provide standards for reviewing new construction.

Mass and Scale

11.4Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale. A new building may convey a sense of human scale by employing techniques such as these:

- Using building materials that are of traditional dimensions.

- Providing a one-story porch that is similar to that seen traditionally.

- Using a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally.

- Using a solid-to-void that is similar to that seen traditionally and using window openings that are similar in size to those seen traditionally.

11.5Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block.

11.6Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block.

The front shall include a one-story element, such as a porch.

Height

11.7Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district. This is an important standard which should be met in all projects.

11.8The back side of a building may be taller than the established norm if the change in scale will not be perceived from public ways.

Width

11.9Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings.

Building form standards

11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block. Simple rectangular solids are typically appropriate.

11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Visually, the roof is the single most important element in an overall building form. Gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms in most residential areas.

Mr. Knight indicated that the "Design Standards for the Central City Historic District" cite the following standards for architectural standards:

Building mass

13.27 Design new buildings to appear similar in mass to those that were typical historically in the district.

Building form

13.28 Design new buildings so that they appear similar in scale to those seen traditionally on the block. Historically, most houses appeared to have a height of one, one-and one half or two stories

13.29 Design a new building to have a form that is similar to those seen historically. In most cases, the primary form for the house was a single rectangular volume.

Summary of Staff's discussion: The overall character of the surrounding streetscape is typical for this part of the Central City Historic District, with modest, low-slung homes on narrow, but deep lots. Most buildings are set back uniformly from the street and have front porches. Buildings are placed quite closely together. The streetscape along Park Street is similar to 700 South, but with reduced street width and front yard setbacks.

Nearby buildings are mostly 1 and 1-1/2 story, single family residences and duplexes, with the exception of three, two-story multi-family structures and a church building, which are all non-contributing structures in the district. The proposed building is one story.

The 10:12 roof pitch exceeds the minimum 6:12 roof pitch suggested in the city's design guidelines, and is similar to roof pitches on other nearby buildings of similar scale. Hipped roofs such as the roof proposed are very common in the Central City Historic District, either with small dormers or gable-roof projections as proposed for this building. The proposed building is similar in size and scale to the surrounding buildings.

Staff's finding of fact: The proposed new house is similar in terms of Height and Width, Proportion of Principal Facades, Roof Shape, and Scale to the surrounding structures and typical structures in this part of the Central City Historic District.

2. Composition of Principal Facades.

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

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

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

d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other

than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.

Applicable Design Guidelines:

Solid-to-void ratio

11.10 Use a ratio of wall-to-window (solid to void) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district. Large surfaces of glass are inappropriate in residential structures. Divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows.

Proportion of building facade elements

11.13 Design overall facade proportions to be similar to those of historic buildings in the neighborhood. The "overall proportion" is the ratio of the width to height of the building, especially the front facade.

Rhythm and spacing

11.14 Keep the proportions of window and door openings similar to those of historic buildings in the area. This is an important design standard because these details strongly influence the compatibility of a building within its context. Large expanses of glass, either vertical or horizontal, are generally inappropriate on new buildings in the historic districts.

Primary entrance

13.25 Clearly define the primary entrance to the house. Use a porch, stoop, portico or similar one-story feature to indicate the entry. Orienting the entry to the street is preferred. Establishing a 'progression" of entry elements, including walkway, landscape elements and porch also is encouraged.

Materials

11.15 Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block.

This will reinforce the sense of visual continuity in the district.

11.16 New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing. Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those used historically. They also must have a proven durability in similar locations in this climate. Metal products are allowed for soffits and eaves only.

13.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically. Appropriate primary building materials include brick, stucco and painted wood. Substitute materials may be considered under some circumstances.

Architectural Character

11.17 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those found historically along the street. These include windows, doors, and porches.

11.18 If they are to be used, design ornamental elements, such as brackets and porches to be in scale with similar historic features. Thin, fake brackets and strap work applied to the surface of a building are inappropriate uses of these traditional details.

11.19 Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged. New designs for window moldings and door surrounds, for example, can provide visual interest while helping to convey the fact that the building is new. Contemporary details for porch railings and columns are other examples. New soffit details and dormer designs also could be used to create interest while expressing a new, compatible style.

11.20 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. One should not replicate historic styles, because this blurs the distinction between old and new buildings, as well as making it more difficult to visually interpret the architectural evolution of the district. Interpretations of historic styles may be considered if they are subtly distinguishable as new.

Windows

11.21 Windows with vertical emphasis are encouraged. A general rule is that the height of the window should be twice the dimension of the width in most residential contexts.

11.22 Frame windows and doors in materials that appear similar in scale, proportion and character to those used traditionally in the neighborhood. Double-hung windows with traditional depth and trim are preferred in most districts.

11.23 Windows shall be simple in shape. Odd window shapes such as octagons, circles, diamonds, etc. are discouraged.

Staffs discussion: The materials proposed for the building are "Hardiplank" fiber cement lap siding for the main wall materials, with "Hardishake" fiber cement shingle siding in the gables and an asphalt shingle roof. The Historic Landmark Commission has allowed the use of "Hardiplank" and similar fiber cement products on new buildings because it is alike in scale, proportion, texture and finish to the wood lap and shingle siding used historically.

The applicant has not supplied details on the proposed windows or a wall section that shows the profile of the windows and how they would be mounted in the wall. From the drawings supplied with this application, it is apparent that the proportion of openings and ratio of solids to voids on the building are regular, and in keeping with those seen on this streetscape. The windows are vertical one-over-one double hung and casement, vinyl sash units, with "Harditrim" composite trim boards. The elevation drawings show transom lights above the windows and doors, but details on these windows were not supplied. If the windows are subdivided, simulated, between-the glass Muntins should not be used because they fail to show the shadow lines of true dividers. Further details on the proposed doors are needed.

The amount of glass in relation to wall material is similar to that seen on historic buildings in the Central City Historic District. There are fewer windows on the east (right side) elevation than were typically seen on similar structures, but this side is not prominent from the street, and the neighboring house is only ten feet from the proposed house. Staff is of the opinion that greater flexibility in the ratio of solid to void is justified on this elevation for those reasons.

Front and back porches are proposed for the home, with wood box columns and wood railings and trim. Details such as the width between the balusters was not supplied, but historic railings of similar scale usually had railings with a narrower width between the balusters than the four-inch minimum that building code allows. In previous cases, the Historic Landmark Commission has specified that the spacing be no more than four inches on center; staff would recommend the same in this case.

Staff's finding of fact: Further detail is needed on the proposed window styles and types, and the proposed doors. Otherwise, the proposed building is similar to surrounding structures in terms of proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids in facades, rhythm of entrance porch and other projections, and relationship of materials.

3. Relationship to Street.

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

Applicable Design Guidelines:

Setback

13.23 Maintain the established alignment of building fronts in the block. In general, larger, taller masses should be set back farther from the front than smaller structures. In some cases, therefore, a setback that is greater than the median setback may be appropriate.

13.24 Maintain the rhythm established by uniform setbacks in the block. It is particularly important that the traditional spacing pattern be maintained as seen from the street. Follow the traditional building pattern in order to maintain the historic character of the street. Consider the visual impact of new construction and additions on neighbors along side yards. Consider varying the height and setback of the structure along the side yard.

Landscaping

12.7 Maintain established native or acclimated plantings on site. Established trees should be preserved on site when feasible. Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replace damaged, aged or diseased trees. If street trees must be removed as part of a development, replace them with species of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.

12.8 Incorporate indigenous plant materials in new landscape designs. Drought-tolerant varieties that are in character with plantings used historically are preferred. The use of gravel and other inorganic surface materials in front yards is prohibited in the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance. A list of drought-tolerant plants is available from the Salt Lake City Planning Division.

12.9 The use of traditional site structures is encouraged. Constructing retaining walls and fences that are similar in scale, texture and finish to those used historically is appropriate.

Staff's discussion: The setbacks of the proposed house along 700 North and Park Street are similar to others on the block. The house is sited on its lot in a similar location and orientation as others on the block.

Parking for the house will be located at the back of the lot, with access off of Park Street. The zoning ordinance does not allow parking in the side yard; the applicant is aware of this requirement and will change the drawings to meet this requirement. The applicant proposes landscaping as shown on the attached plan. Generally, houses on this block had a walk from the front sidewalk to the front entry, but it stands to reason that, given the proximity of the front entrance to Park Street, a walk to that street might also have been seen historically.

Staff's finding of fact: The setbacks of the proposed house from the street, property lines and nearby structures of the proposed house is similar to nearby buildings and other historic examples in the Central City Historic District. The main facade of the house is oriented toward 700 South and is oriented in a similar way as other houses on the street. The proposed house meets the standards of the ordinance in terms of directional expression of the principal elevation, rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, and walls of continuity.

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: There are no subdivision issues in this case. This standard is not applicable.

Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation: "Based upon the findings of fact in this staff report and the information supplied by the applicant, Staff recommends conceptual approval of the design and referral to the Architectural Subcommittee for refinement of details, including the following:

1. Corrected site plans showing the correct dimensions of the house and parking located in the rear yard;

2. Additional details, such as product brochures or cut sheets, regarding the selected windows and doors; windows should not have simulated, between-the-glass Muntins because they fail to replicate the shadow lines of true divided lights;

3. Smooth finish Hardiplank or an equivalent fiber cement product shall be used for the lap siding;

4. That the design for the front porch rail be modified so that the balusters are spaced at no more than four inches on center;

5. That the final design be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee before Staff issues a Certificate of Appropriateness, and any exterior changes during construction be reviewed by Staff;

6. Any other items raised by the Commission during its discussion."

Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.

Mr. Ashdown asked if the proposed new home would be comparable to the house next door to the east. Mr. Knight said that the proposed setback for the house would be 20 feet. Mr. Simonsen said that the front set back appeared to be greater than the house next door, according to the aerial photographs. He said that perhaps this is a clarification issue on the site plan.

Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.

The applicant, Mr. Jim Shaw of Shaw Homes, was present. Mr. Shaw circulated a revised site plan, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the front set back would be 20 feet, which is allowed in the zoning district.

Mr. Shaw pointed out the creative window detail that he proposes. He said that he proposed to use a wood sunburst door for the front, and a wood six panel door on the back, but did not have the details on the window or the doors.

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

• Mr. Fitzsimmons led the discussion by asking what the setback was on the house next door. Mr. Shaw said that he believed it was about 20 feet. He said it was difficult to tell from the aerial photograph. To use as a measuring point, Mr. Littig mentioned that a standard car is 15 feet long.

• Mr. Simonsen asked if that would require a variance if the setback was less than 20 feet. Mr. Knight said that it would because the minimum set back is 20 feet. Mr. Simonsen said that perhaps that could be addressed. Mr. Shaw said that he did not believe the setback should be less than 20 feet in the front yard, especially for a corner lot because people walking down the sidewalk would need to have a view of vehicles moving on the street.

Mr. Littig asked if the transom windows were true divided lights. Mr. Shaw said they would be sliders. Mr. Littig talked about the consistency of the windows on the drawings. Mr. Littig explained that the Commission encourages that the grids are placed on the outside of the glass and not between the thermal pane glass.

Ms. Giraud clarified, are you proposing sliders on the front of the house for the windows. Mr. Shaw said that he was not in the front. Ms. Giraud inquired if he would be willing to use a one-pane window rather than a double as shown on the drawings. Mr. Shaw said that he could. There was some discussion regarding this suggestion as the windows were discussed.

Ms. Rowland said that the front railing and columns are drawn differently on the plans. Mr. Shaw said that was my mistake. Ms. Rowland inquired if the railing on the front porch would go all the way across. Mr. Shaw said that it would. There was some confusion how one would approach the front entry. Mr. Shaw said that the front stairs would go directly down the front. Ms. Rowland pointed out that the site plan did not show the stairway and the landscaping plan showed Junipers in front of the porch. Mr. Shaw said that the landscape plan was wrong. He added that the Junipers would be moved over 6 to 8 feet. He reiterated that the stairs would come out straight from the front door.

• Ms. Mickelsen said that there needed to be a much clearer definition of the windows. Ms. Rowland agreed and asked if they would be custom windows. Mr. Shaw said that his architect drew in the design at the top of the window which gives them the appearance of transoms. Ms. Mickelsen said that she liked the way they looked. Ms. Mickelsen inquired why the drawings showed the proposed windows in the dining room higher than the other windows on the west elevation. Mr. Shaw

said that the architect designed it that way to give the long side elevation some variety. There was a short discussion regarding the size of the windows.

Executive Session

Ms. Rowland said that it was refreshing to see a modestly scaled house proposed for the site. Mr. Fitzsimmons agreed and said it was a nice design.

Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion.

Motion:

In the matter of Case No. 011-03, Mr. Littig moved to conceptually approve the

proposed structure, as submitted, and referred the application to the Architectural Subcommittee for the refinement of the following details: 1) corrected landscaping and site plans; 2) additional details on the windows and doors; windows should not have simulated between-the-glass Muntins; and 3) details of the ·front porch. Further, the 'final approval can be administered by Staff. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.

(Mr. Christensen excused himself and left the meeting at 5:55P.M.)

OTHER BUSINESS

RDA development on the corner of 300 West and Reed Avenue.

Ms. Giraud stated that Staff met with the RDA (Redevelopment Agency), Mr. Eric Jergensen and Van Turner from the City Council the day before. She said that the RDA is interested in developing the site at the corner of 300 West and Reed Avenue. Ms. Giraud added that it would involve the demolition of a contributing structure and two more structures that Staff considers to be non-contributing. Ms. Giraud stated that the RDA asked if there could be a subcommittee formed that would include members of the Historic Landmark Comrr1ission who would work out a design and the issues, in spirit of working together. She inquired who would be interested in serving on that subcommittee.

Mr. Simonsen said that he would like to leave an opening for Mr. Christensen because he has expressed an interest and has researched that area. Mr. Simonsen said that he would also like to serve on that subcommittee depending upon his availability.

Revitalization and future use plan for Pioneer Park.

Ms. Giraud pointed out a letter addressed to the Historic Landmark Commission from Mr. Rick Graham, Director of Public Services for Salt Lake City, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She said that the purpose of the letter was to invite some members of the Commission to serve on a subcommittee for the revitalization and future use of Pioneer Park. The first meeting will be a working lunch and is scheduled for Thursday, May 29, 2003 at 11:30 A.M. in the Cannon Room (Room 335) in the City and County Building.

Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Littig asked to serve on that committee.

Workshops with Mr. Nore' Winter. consultant.

Ms. Giraud said that she proposed a series of four workshops with Mr. Nore' Winter, the consultant, over a two or three-day period. Each workshop would be about two or three hours long. She said that the four workshops would include: 1) Refining Historic Landmark Commission skills (this would be tailored specifically to members of the Commission); 2) A study session for other boards and commissions; 3) Preservation strategies in the broader planning context (this would address conservation districts, and would explore alternative tools in design review. We would invite citizens who have seriously explored these options, such as residents of the East Central and Yalecrest communities; and 4) Preservation and development in Salt Lake City (this would include the RDA Staff, economic development officials, and housing officials).

Ms. Giraud said that she was a little worried about the contract process so she left two different dates with Mr. Winter, which would be either June 16-17,2003 or July 14-15, 2003. She said that she would report to the Commission when the dates and the times are finalized.

Changing the room for the Historic Landmark Commission meetings.

There was further discussion about changing the Historic Landmark Commission from Room 126 to Room 326. After a short discussion, Mr. Simonsen polled the Commission.

It was the general consensus of the Commission to remain in Room 126 and to continue to hold the meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of the month.

RDA development at 300 West and 500 North.

Mr. Ashdown said that the RDA is advertising the property at 300 West and 500 North for sale in the exact same manner and he was disturbed about the way that it is being handled, especially since the Historic Landmark Commission expressed concerned about how the property was handled before. He said that he knew some people who called about individual properties, and they received the same answer as before.

A discussion was held regarding the RDA's marketing strategy for that site. Ms. Giraud said that she worked with the RDA and some zoning errors had to be corrected. Ms. Giraud said that she asked that the RDA emphasize that the historic' structures could be parceled separately. She said that the RDA seemed to comply with that recommendation.

• The Utah Heritage Foundation helped provide a mailing list of interested people.

Mr. Zunguze inquired if the recommendation came in a formal request from the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Ashdown stated that he went before the RDA Board after the Commission denied demolition on some of the contributing structures on that property and tried to explain the concerns of the Commission. He pointed out that the Commission was very concerned that the marketing strategy of offering the entire property was not working and that RDA had not done enough to market the properties, individually.

Mr. Simonsen said that he could not recall that the Commission made a formal request but it was certainly a strong recommendation at the meeting.

Ms. Rowland said that the Board was told that the Commission had not seen a "good faith" effort to market the individual properties, and that the RDA was putting its effort into marketing the entire site as one piece. She also talked about the short time period developers were given to initiate a formal proposal for the property.

Mr. Littig told of a personal experience of trying to obtain one individual parcel on which had historic buildings. He said that the RDA was not keen on keeping or moving the buildings that were already condemned for demolition.

Other matters.

Mr. Ashdown reminded the Commission that the Utah Heritage Foundation Home Tour would be held on May 17, 2003. He added that the tour would cover several homes on Stratford Avenue (2500 South) off 1300 East.

Ms. Mickelsen said that the recently held Salt Lake City Neighborhood Conference was enjoyable with a lot of good and useful information. People did a lot of networking and that was important.

Mr. Gordon reported that the stained glass in the First Presbyterian Church, on which he is working, is being refurbished.

Adjournment of the meeting.

Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Rowland moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. A formal vote by the merr1bers is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:40P.M.