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, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Vicki Mickelsen, Acting Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, and Amy Rowland. Noreen Heid, Soren Simonsen, and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Mickelsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
A letter was included in the packet from Mr. Louis Zunguze, the Planning Director, to United States General Services Administration responding to the Programmatic Agreement regarding the proposed expansion to the Moss Courthouse and the relocation of the historic Odd Fellows building. A copy of the letter was filed with the minutes.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Ms. Mickelsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Giraud reported that the owner of the property at 467 Pugsley Street is applying for a variance to rebuild the original porch. She noted that the property is located outside of the local Capitol Hill Historic District but in the district listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Giraud circulated an historic photograph of the building showing the original porch detail, a current photograph, and a copy of the plans. She pointed out the sections of the porch what had been removed. Ms. Giraud inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission could support her writing a letter to the Board of Adjustment urging the members to grant the owner the needed variance to rebuild the porch.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired why the owner needed a variance to rebuild the porch. Ms. Giraud said that the porch would not meet the front yard setback requirements. Ms. Mickelsen entertained a motion at this time.
A short discussion followed.
Motion:
Ms. Rowland moved that the Historic Landmark Commission support the applicant's request for a variance to rebuild a replication of the original front porch on the structure at 467 Pugsley Street. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Mr. Simonsen, and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
There were no public comments to the Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the minutes of the September 3, 2003 meeting. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland abstained. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Mr. Simonsen, and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 020-03. at 222 No. "K" Street. by John Landry. who is requesting approval to construct a new single-car garage. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project:
Mr. John Landry, the owner of the house at 222 No. "K" Street, requested approval to construct a one-story, one-car garage in the side yard of his property. The garage would be located 10' - 2" north of the existing house. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District, and in zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District.
The two-story, gable-roofed, wood-sides Victorian-era house was probably built around 1893 by the Mullholland family, who owned the property and lived at the corner of Fourth Avenue and "K" Street. The first residents of the house were probably Thomas and Winefred Mullholland, who bought the lot from his mother in 1893. The house passed through a succession owners, who lived in or rented the house out, until the Peek family purchased it in 1934 and the house remained in their family for many years. The present owner, John Landry, has undertaken a complete rehabilitation of the house.
There is no existing garage or outbuildings on the site, and the applicant would like to construct a one-car garage. The proposed building would be 14'-6" x 24'-0", with one parking bay and additional room for storage. The proposed primary wall material would be wood clapboard siding to match the siding on the house. The applicant proposed wood double-hung windows and doors. The gable roofs 12:12 pitch and asphalt shingles also would match the house.
The proposed building is set back (east) 15'-10" from "K" Street, but the size and configuration of the lot would not allow the building to be placed behind the house. Constructing the garage at this location will require a variance from the Board of Adjustment, because it would be located within the required side yard. The Planning Staff recommended that the variance be granted, because there is no other feasible location to place the garage on this lot. Staff chose to refer this application to the full Commission for review, because of the prominent location of the garage with respect to the street. The surrounding property owners will then receive notice of the proposal and will be given an opportunity to provide input on the Commission's decision.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. He indicated that the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based upon the following standards of the ordinance:
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 a non-contributing structure, shall determine
application involves the alteration of 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.
Staff's discussion: The surrounding structures are a mix of single- and two-story buildings in a range of historic and contemporary styles, ranging from the contemporary and historic apartments to the south and northeast to a number of single-story and two story Victorian-era cottages to the north, east, and west.
There are a wide variety of outbuildings on the surrounding blocks, ranging from many small sheds to several examples of large multi-car garages. A 1994 article by former city Preservation Planner describes the history and typical characteristics of garages in the Avenues. (A copy of the report was attached to the staff report.) The proposed garage would be smaller than most garages recently constructed in the Avenues, and more in keeping with the size and scale of historic garages in the Avenues Historic District and the city.
The proportions of the building are similar to those exhibited on typical historic garages in the district, and the 12:12 pitch gabled roof matches the adjacent house.
Staffs findings of fact: The application complies with this standard.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the 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.
Staffs discussion: The wood windows and doors proposed are historically appropriate in size, proportion, arrangement, and material, and go beyond what the Historic Landmark Commission typically requires for outbuildings. The proposed wood siding and trim, and asphalt shingles match the house and are typically approved materials for garages.
Staffs findings of fact: The applicant complies with this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staffs discussion: In most cases, garages and outbuildings should be located behind the structure, in order to conform with historic precedent and meets the Historic Landmark Commission's design guidelines. In this case, however, the size and configuration of the lot dictate a more prominent location. The owner has addressed this potential issue by keeping the building small, and matching the materials, roof shape and details of the adjacent main structure. Thus, the building does not compete visually with the primary structure or nearby structures on the streetscape, and will not present a "blank look" to the street with a large garage door and little architectural detail.
Staffs findings of fact: The application complies with this standard.
3. 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: No subdivision is proposed.
The Design Guidelines· for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City address accessory buildings in Section 9. One guideline addresses preserving existing historic accessory buildings where feasible. The second and third deal with the details of constructing a new garage:
9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure. In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for the 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.
9.3Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure. Traditionally, garages were sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. The allowance of attached accessory structures is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Staffs discussion and findings of fact: Staff finds that the proposal complies with these guidelines.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation: "Based upon the findings of fact, Staff recommends approval of the design as submitted. The Historic Landmark Commission may also wish to forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed variance to the Board of Adjustment."
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Christensen inquired about the applicant's plans for the garage doors. He said that it was drawn as a series of slabs that were hinged, and yet the plans called it a carriage house style door. Mr. Knight said that he did not believe the selection of the door had been made and suggested clarifying that issue with the applicant.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. John Landry, the applicant, was present. He stated that the garage door would be carriage house style. Mr. Landry said that the proposed garage would be in the context of the same period as the house. He added that there would be divided lights in some of the panels in the garage door. Mr. Landry stated that he was concerned about the maintenance of the garage doors, which will have a western exposure. He pointed out that the door would either be painted or stained.
• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by asking about the personal (man) door. Mr. Landry said that it was not called out on the drawing but it would probably be in twopanels on the bottom with a half-light in a pine or fir door.
Ms. Rowland commended the applicant for the design, massing and scale, and materials for the proposed structure because most people want garages that are large and massive which do not fit in the neighborhood. She asked the applicant if he minded giving the Commission or Staff some information about the cost for a building such as he proposed so the information could be passed onto some prospective property owners. Ms. Rowland said that it would be helpful to tell people that the cost of building an appropriately designed garage, using proper materials was not prohibited. Mr. Christensen agreed and said that he was pleased to see a project like this come before the Commission. Mr. Landry said that he would.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Following a short discussion, Ms. Mickelsen entertained a motion.
Motion:
Ms. Rowland moved for Case No. 020-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the request to construct a new single-car garage, based on the findings of fact in the staff report, the standards in the City's Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City contingent upon a pending review and approval by Staff of the garage doors. Further, the Historic Landmark Commission is forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to grant the applicant a variance that would allow the garage to the built. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Mr. Simonsen, and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Continuation of Case No. 019-03. from the September 3, 2003 meeting, which is a request from the Salt Lake City and County Building Conservancy and Use Committee soliciting comments from the Historic Landmark Commission regarding draft guidelines for the City and County Building and grounds. known as Washington Square. located at 451 South State Street. Washington Square is on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Giraud stated that at the suggestion of the Planning Division Staff, the Salt Lake City and County Building Conservancy and Use committee is soliciting comments from the Historic Landmark Commission for guidelines addressing "all future considerations of works of art, including statuary, and gifts that are requested to be positioned on this historic site". Ms. Giraud said that although both the Conservancy and Use Committee and the Historic Landmark Commission are committed to the preservation of the building and grounds, the Conservancy and Use Committee differs from the Historic Landmark Commission in that it is an advisor to the Mayor and its purview extends to the interior of the City and County Building. She added that Mr. Steve Oliver is the Director of Facilities Services and is the person in charge whenever there is an event on the grounds and also the interior of the building.
Ms. Giraud said that on September 3, 2003, the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed a staff report requesting comments from the Commission to the Conservancy Board to assist the members in preparing guidelines for any exterior alterations, including the acceptance and placement of sculptures and monuments, to the City and County Building and Washington Square. She pointed out that the motion from the meeting instructed the members of the Historic Landmark Commission to forward their comments to her so she could compile them, and then the discussion could be continued at the subsequent Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Ms. Giraud the Commission could vote on the recommendations that would be forwarded to the Conservancy Board.
Ms. Giraud referred to her memorandum, dated September 12, 2003, of which a copy was filed with the minutes. She said that she only heard from two Commissioners.
Ms. Giraud said that Ms. Mickelsen strongly recommended that the various groups who oversee Washington Square create a master plan for the Square, which should include:
Historical information.
A clear statement of the role of the Square in the life of the community currently and in the future.
The current site plan.
A vision for future changes in the grounds.
Guidelines for those changes (including statuary).
Activities to be allowed and not allowed.
Guidelines for those activities.
Responsibilities for decision-making: who decides what responsibilities for maintenance and who does what.
Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Parvaz commented that it would be a sound approach to prepare a master plan for the complex. This plan shall a) study and document the history and evolution of the building and site, b) analyze existing conditions, limitations, and potentials, c) and propose a comprehensive plan for the future, emphasizing conservation and evolution of the complex. It seems that existing zoning ordinances and other design guidelines are not specifically detailed for this case, and are not adequate for adding new elements to the grounds of the historic City and County Building of Romanesque style at the middle of a city block surrounded by buildings of various styles. It would be very helpful for planners and decision makers to base their findings and decisions on a carefully prepared master plan.
In case the Historic Landmark Commission has to review the addition of new elements to the site prior to preparation of a master plan, in addition to existing noted concerns, the following issues should also be addressed:
Identifying and justifying 4 main axes and 4 secondary axes that might be kept open. This study can analyze overall view angles and the extent of openness along each axis.
Finding sensitive and non-sensitive spaces in the site for additions. While it is easy to disallow any addition to the site, one should consider that with regard to the size, height, material, and the subject of artworks and the existence of public sidewalks around it, the site may be capable to receive one or more additions without disturbing the overall character of the complex.
Some additional artworks may not need to be permanent and may rotate between
different sites and parks in the city.
Parking meters are not slightly additions to the site.
Making a 3D model of the complex would be an essential part of a thorough analysis. This model will facilitate the study of every addition or change to the site and its impact on the complex.
Studying height limitation, shape, size, material, and color for any addition to the site.
Existence of pedestrian walks around the square shall be acknowledged. These walk are parts of the urban pedestrian network and can interact with the boundaries of Washington Square. Using the corners at which the street sidewalks and the diagonal walks on the grounds meet should be the only place for artwork. Placing artwork in those corners would have the least impact on the geometry of the site.
Only artworks can be placed on the ground. Other additions including utilities can be placed underground.
Ms. Giraud referred to her comments that were included in the Historic Landmark
Commission staff report, dated September 3, 2003:
That monuments or gifts of art be of historic significance to the people of Salt Lake City; That monuments or gifts of art not be placed on the west side of the building, as the west side of the building and grounds were historically the main, public entrance to the building; That monuments or gifts of art not be placed inside the circular planters on any side of the grounds, as these are historic elements. As Ms. Striefel's report points out, the installation of art or monuments in these planters disrupts their formal symmetry; That agendas of the Conservancy and Use Committee (CUC) be mailed to the Planning Division staff, in order to make the Planning Division staff aware of potential actions requiring Historic Landmark Commission review; That the Planning Division staff will receive a copy of the Conservancy and Use Committee's minutes; and That any applications regarding actions to the City and County Building or Washington Square will come from the Department of Public Services, and insure that the Department of Public Services' staff receives Historic Landmark Commission's agendas, findings and orders, and copies of minutes.
Ms. Giraud indicated that some comments were geared toward administrative issues. She said that in the future when an issue regarding the building is scheduled to be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission, an agenda would be forwarded to the Conservancy and Use Committee. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the policy would also be based on the comments in Jan Striefel's report. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission should review the comments.
Mr. Parvaz asked if public input was needed. Ms. Giraud said that she did not think so because it was the Conservancy and Use Committee's guidelines. A short discussion followed.
Mr. Christensen said that his concerns were the same as at the last meeting. He referred to Staff's recommendations included in the staff report for the September 3, 2003 Historic Landmark Commission meeting: 'That monuments or gifts of art be of historic significance to the people of Salt Lake City." Mr. Christensen added that the word "historic" has been treated loosely. He mentioned that he loved historical markers that represent historical events of historical people. Mr. Christensen believed that the sentenced should be revised to read: "That monuments or gifts of art be of historic or cultural significance to the people of Salt Lake City."
Ms. Giraud stated that the excerpt came from the guidelines of the State Capitol Building and Grounds. She said she believed it was a good example of a standard that could provide direction to the Conservancy and Use Committee and to the Historic Landmark Commission if it were incorporated into the guidelines. Ms. Giraud talked about the confusion some decisions regarding the building and grounds have created because there was no master plan.
Ms. Mickelsen said that there needed to be a third statement of what Washington Square wants to be in the life of a community and that may guide the policy for statuaries. She stated that if the Square was a monument to the history of Salt Lake City then a historical criterion is appropriate, but if the Square has a broader intent, such as to enhance the current life of the city or the cultural aspects of the city, then that might dictate a different criterion for Washington Square.
Ms. Giraud indicated that she believed the Commissioner's comments were good and would help draft the guidelines if the Conservancy and Use Committee choose to take them into consideration.
Mr. Christensen stated that Jan Striefel's report mentions that monuments or gifts of art should not be placed on the west side of the building. He pointed out that he viewed the yard around the building as big triangles. He added that he would like to specify that the existing concrete walks coming out at angles in front of the building delineate the triangles. Mr. Christensen said that he has enjoyed seeing the statuary tucked at the corners of the Square. Some other members agreed. He indicated that if the guidelines prohibit anything being placed on the west side of the building, then it would have been impossible for those statues to have been situated in the corners during the Olympics.
Ms. Mickelsen suggested that areas be designated that would be and would not be appropriate for the placement of statues.
A discussion pursued regarding some of the suggestions and comments that had been made and if they would be accepted by the Conservancy and Use Committee.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited Ms. Mary Lou Gotschall, Chair of the Conservancy and Use Committee, to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Gotschall thanked the commissioners for their comments. She added that some of them are already in place. Ms. Gotschall referred to the site assessment in Jan Striefel's report.
Mr. Gotschall said that all the comments and suggestions would be seriously considered in the subcommittee, which is planning to met on October 23, 2003. She added that the subcommittee would "hammer" out a draft and present it to the Conservancy and Use Committee when it meets in November 2003. Ms. Gotschall stated that the Committee wants to produce guidelines that will be helpful to everyone involved.
Ms. Gotschall introduced Ms. Sandi Hatch, a member of the Conservancy and Use Committee. Ms. Hatch stated that she actually thought it was a little premature to bring the draft to the Commission. She mentioned that the Committee only meets four times a year and to produce a document like guidelines the Committee needs to meet more often. Ms. Hatch added that there were many issues that still needed to be addressed. She pointed out that she really appreciated all the written comments, but in terms of formalizing recommendations it is a little premature.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by stating that the Commission was faced with a decision that was not based on any guidelines or master plans. He added that the Commission tried to find some bases or some kind of consensus for making the decision. Mr. Parvaz said that it was important to know the thoughts of the Conservancy and Use Committee, so open communication is good. Ms. Hatch said that the Committee, the Historic Landmark Commission, and the Arts council all have a common base of having an insight into the historic and cultural aspects of the building and grounds.
Ms. Mickelsen said that she did not believe that anyone would be considering the suggestions made by the Commission as formal recommendations. She said that, "These are the results of what we think would be helpful in the guidelines."
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Mickelsen entertained a motion. There was no further discussion.
Motion:
In the matter of Case No. 019-03, Mr. Parvaz moved that all the issues which became known at the September 3, 2003 Historic Landmark Commission meeting and in today's meeting, as well as all the comments and recommendations be forwarded to the Salt Lake Conservancy and Use Committee for their review which will give them direction and help in their decision making process to draft guidelines for the City and County Building and grounds known as Washington Square. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Mr. Simonsen, and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 022-03. at 967 E. First Avenue. by Harry L. Hoagland. who is requesting approval to construct a half-story addition on an existing two-car garage on the property. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project:
Mr. Harry L. (Skip) Hoagland, owner of the house at 967 First Avenue, requested approval to construct an addition to the existing two-car garage on his property. The garage is located at the back of Mr. Hoagland's property, with access ·from an alley off Second Avenue. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District, and is zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District.
The existing garage was approved by the Historic Landmark Commission and constructed in 1986. Mr. Hoagland proposed to add an additional level to the building to be used as storage. The extra space would be accessed from an interior stairway constructed in an addition to the west side of the existing structure. A set of French-style doors will allow "hayloft" access from the outside via a winch attached to the ridge of the structure.
Because Mr. Hoagland will use the attic space as storage, Staff determined that the proposed garage constituted an accessory structure greater than one story. The Historic Landmark Commission's policy is intended to require that these garages go to the full Commission due to their potential impact on surrounding structures. The surrounding property owners will receive notice of the proposal and will be given an opportunity to provide input on the Commission's decision.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance. He indicated that the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings based upon the following standards of the ordinance:
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.
2. Scale and Form.
b. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. 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;
d. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
e. 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: The openings of the proposed garage are symmetrically placed, are compatible with the residential surroundings and in scale with the primary structure. Although two single doors rather than one door are preferred for garages in local historic districts, a double-width garage door was approved by the HLC in 1986 when the garage was constructed, and similar doors have been approved numerous times by the Commission. The materials are designed for compatibility with the existing structure and have been approved for numerous garages in the historic districts. For garages, "entrance porches and other projections" are not an issue.
Staff's findings of fact: The applicant meets this requirement.
3. Composition of Principal Facades.
b. 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;
c. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
d. 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
e. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The wood windows and doors proposed are historically appropriate in size, proportion, arrangement, and material, and go beyond what the Historic Landmark Commission typically requires for outbuildings. The proposed wood siding and trim, and asphalt shingles match the house and are typically approved materials for garages.
Staff's findings of fact: The applicant complies with this standard.
4. Relationship to Street.
b. 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;
d. 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;
e. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure sha1 be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
e. 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: Because the garage has no relationship to the street, staff finds that this standard does 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).
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: There are no subdivision issues with this application.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City address accessory buildings in Section 9. One guideline addresses preserving existing historic accessory buildings where feasible. The second and third deal with the details of constructing a new garage:
9.2 Construct accessory buildings that are compatible with the primary structure. In general, garages should be unobtrusive and not compete visually with the house. While the roofline does not have to match the house, it is best if it does not vary significantly. Allowable materials include horizontal siding, brick, and in some cases stucco. Vinyl and aluminum siding are not allowed for the walls but are acceptable for the 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.
9.3Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure. Traditionally, garages were sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. The allowance of attached accessory structures is reviewed on a case by-case basis.
Staff's discussion and findings of fact: Staff finds that the proposed garage is compatible with the primary structure, in that the materials, scale, and fenestration are in character with the applicant's home, and do not compete visually with the house. It is a separate structure located at the back of the lot, and is not prominent from any vantage point from the street.
Mr. Knight added that no additional approvals would be required.
Mr. Knight offered the following Staff recommendation: "Based upon the findings of fact, Staff recommends approval of the design as submitted."
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Christensen inquired if the property owners were approved for a single garage door. He added that it might be difficult to turn into the garage from the alley access. Mr. Knight said that it would be a "straight shot" to get into the proposed garage. He said that the garage door would be a new addition, but the double-lift opening was approved. Mr. Christensen said that it sounded like it was approved without any hint of a door ever being on it so is that an issue that the Commission should be considering. Mr. Knight stated if the Commission determined that the garage door was an issue, then he suggested approaching the applicant. Ms. Giraud said that this garage would not be visible from the street. Mr. Christensen said that was helpful. He was not able to get to this particular site.
Ms. Giraud said that everyone's lot seems to merge in that location.
Mr. Knight stated that there is a similar size structure with 1-1/2 stories that was approved within the last couple of years, just immediately west of this property.
Mr. Parvaz noted the two small doors above the garage door and said that they looked a little unusual. Mr. Knight said that there are historic examples of upper story doors. He added that it was used as a hayloft on the outbuildings. Mr. Parvaz also commented about the piece that was hanging out. Mr. Knight said that was for access of a pulley to lift things into that storage space. Mr. Parvaz asked if Staff had made a study of those kind of doors and would they be appropriate. Mr. Knight said that the benefit of glass doors is for the light they provide into the area.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the garage doors are usually solid and hinged on one side. Mr. Knight said that the design of the garage would be contemporary; a modern interpretation. Ms. Mickelsen said that she agreed with Mr. Parvaz and said those doors look like they might be dangerous. She also said that the doors needed some kind of balcony or railing.
Mr. Christensen said that Mr. Hoagland has probably explored the code issues since he is a contractor.
Ms. Mickelsen suggested putting a post under the cantilever on the east side of the building.
There were questions about the proposed casement windows and if they would be set back in the wall. Comments were made that there needed to be more details. The discussion continued.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Harry Hoagland, the applicant, was present. He stated that he is a contractor by profession and does a lot a work in that area, as well as in Federal Heights. Mr. Hoagland indicated that he had built three or four of these types of structures. He said that there was an existing garage when he bought the house in 1976 with footings and a foundation. Mr. Hoagland said that he tore it down because it was unsafe and used the slab as a parking area. He applied for a permit and built the garage on existing foundation in 1986. Mr. Hoagland addressed the cantilever by saying that they are engineered to be safe and I would only put a post underneath it for decorative reasons.
Mr. Hoagland said that the windows would be casements but had not specified the type of sash. He added that he would consider having true divided light windows; however the cost would be a consideration.
Mr. Hoagland said that he would like to keep the glass in the upper doors to provide some natural light into the upper story.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Christensen led the discussion by asking if the windows would be wood and if the upper windows would be workable. Mr. Hoagland said that they would be nice windows. He talked about the garage he just finished building on Third Avenue that has the same kind of swinging arm and pulley mechanism that would hoist things for storage on the upper floor. Mr. Hoagland said that a 600-pound piece of equipment had been lifted up into the storage area.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the proposed garage door. Mr. Hoagland said that it would be a metal door. He added that there is an existing garage door on there now. Mr. Knight said that he had always seen it opened so he did not know that a garage door existed.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the same kind of shingles were still available for the new addition. Mr. Hoagland said that they were still available.
Mr. Hoagland said that he built the structure to the west. He said that his garage door cost $600.00 and the garage door on the building to the west cost $2,000, so there is much to consider aesthetically and cost wise.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Gordan Savin, who resides in the neighborhood, stated that he shares the back alley with Mr. Hoagland. He expressed a deep concern that since Mr. Hoagland acquired four additional feet of property, it would overlap his own property. He said that he has thirty feet of building on his property line and in the future there will be an additional four feet. Mr. Savin said that if he should decide to build a garage on the corner of his property and use the "P" Street access, it would block Mr. Hoagland's garage. Ms. Mickelsen said that she was confused about his property's relationship to the property from that of the applicant. Ms. Rowland asked if Mr. Hoagland's garage touched his property at one point or if the proposed extension would stretch to his property. Mr. Savin said that the addition would bring it to the property line.
Ms. Giraud asked Mr. Hoagland if the proposed addition would be on Mr. Savin's property. Mr. Hoagland said that he is in the process of going through the City's Routine and Uncontested Lot Line Adjustment process to acquire the additional four feet of property, which required the service of a professional surveyor. He believes that Mr. Savin is a little confused about how the proposed addition would affect his property line. Mr. Hoagland said that he would be extending four feet on the west side but it would be finished at the property line.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that there was a change in the State Law a few years ago that now allows a property owner the privilege of going through the process of adjusting a lot line without having to go through an administrative hearing. He said that the Planning Office has had an ordinance provision for that purpose since 1999. Mr. Wheelwright added that the office had processed several applications since the law was changed. He said that the Planning Office looks to make sure that the zoning issues are not increased, and not creating additional non-conformity in terms of zoning compliance. Mr. Wheelwright pointed out that the application requires signatures of the abutting property owners. He said that the Planning Office records a notice with the Salt Lake County Recorder's Office, which authorizes a deed changing the property lines.
Mr. Savin said that he signed the application because he did not have issues with the garage, but with the additional four feet, he was concerned that it would affect his ability to construct anything. Mr. Wheelwright indicated that these issues would be solved and asked Mr. Knight to investigate Mr. Savin's concerns and to keep in touch with him.
Mr. Parvaz said that the Commission needed to study this issue further and possibly bring it back to the Commission. He also asked if the rainwater would drain of Mr. Hoagland's own property. Mr. Hoagland said that it would.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the property line issues, set back issues, the necessity of a one-hour firewall, the overhang element, and other zoning issues.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Christensen said that he certainly doesn't want to delay Mr. Hoagland's project unnecessarily, but he had a concern that since the property in question had not been secured and that the proposed addition might have to be adjusted by at least one foot, he said that the design might have to be changed. Ms. Giraud inquired if Mr. Christensen believed that the design would change within the context of how it would affect the historic district if it was moved one foot. Mr. Christensen said that he did not believe it would. He expressed his concern about some previous decisions that were hurriedly made by the Commission and how some came back to "haunt" the Commission.
There was a short discussion that the Historic Landmark Commission would not be meeting in the next two weeks.
Ms. Giraud said that it was her experience that the only time the Commission gets into trouble is when the members make decisions outside the purview of the Commission. She added that as long as the Commissioners base their decisions on the City's Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Lew suggested that the Commission could put a condition on the motion that the project would have to meet all other City requirements.
Mr. Parvaz explained that he also had a problem with all the issues surrounding this project. He believed that a good site plan was needed that clearly showed the location of the project in comparison with the neighbor's property.
Mr. Fitzsimmons said that he also had a problem with the location of the garage on the property.
Ms. Giraud inquired if the Commission was concerned about the risk of the Commission being criticized because the decision was not made based on the standards in the ordinance and the guidelines. She asked if the Commission thought the resolution of the zoning question would make a difference in how the garage is perceived within the district.
Mr. Parvaz said that this issue was not detected in the staff report. The Commission should review any design changes.
Mr. Knight said that the Commission could outline any conditions that were left unsolved and have the ·final review and approval by Staff.
Motion:
• Ms. Rowland moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the design, as presented, for Case No. 022-03 based on the ·findings of fact found in the staff report, contingent on the following: 1) that the project continues through the lot line adjustment process; 2) that the zoning and code issues are resolved; 3) that the project has all required approvals by other City Departments; 4) that the design does not substantially change; and 5) that Staff would have the final review and if all contingencies are resolved, could make the final approval. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz was opposed. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Heid, Mr. Simonsen, and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 023-03. at 1221 E. Fourth Avenue. by Jody Evans and Inga Regenass. who are requesting approval to enlarge a rear addition and construct a second-story addition to an existing residence. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
(Mr. Ashdown arrived at 5:30P.M. and was present for the remainder of the meeting.)
Ms. Lew 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. Lew gave an overview of the project:
Jody Evans and Inga Regenass requested approval to enlarge the existing rear addition and construct a second-story addition to the single-story house at 1221 E. Fourth Avenue. The home is located in the Avenues Historic District in a Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" Zoning District. The zone allows single-family and twin homes as permitted uses.
According to the historic site form completed in 1979, this one-story bungalow style house was built ca. 1090. Oriented toward the street, the gable end has bracketed bargeboards, a three-part Palladian type window, and wood shingle siding. The design may have been chosen from an architectural pattern, a common practice in the district. The original owner, Georgianna Guiver Hendrickson lived in the home until her death in 1946. Charles Hendrickson, her husband, then became title holder and sold the property to his son Golden 0. Hendrickson in 1948. The Guiver family built several homes in the Avenues area.
The applicants are proposing to add a new second floor addition set back 15 feet from the plane of the front facade, with approximately 340 additional square feet of space. The additional story would encompass the west facing gable to the rear of the structure and provide space for a bedroom and bath. A dormer in the east slope of the roof is also shown on the drawings. Additionally, the existing single-story rear addition would be enlarged in order to expand the mudroom. The proposed materials for the new construction are clapboard siding with shingle siding in the north and south gable ends. The proposed roofing material and architectural detailing will match the existing materials.
The Architectural Subcommittee reviewed this proposal at the September 10, 2003 meeting. The comments made at the meeting were generally in favor of the project. The Subcommittee directed the applicants to modify the window treatment in the front facing gable end of the rooftop addition. The current drawings reflect this direction. A more contemporary window type was originally shown on the drawings.
Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020(G) H Historic Overlay District of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance.
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:
The Historic Landmark Commission has final decision authority with respect to this request. Staff has determined that the following standards in the zoning ordinance and in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City are the most pertinent to this application:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;
Applicable Design Guidelines:
8.1 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
Staff's Discussion: This home is an example of the basic rectangular bungalow with gable roof form that incorporates some minor alterations. The front gable end has wood shingle siding, a three-part type window, and is supported “y” brackets. These details would remain intact. To minimize the impact of adding a new floor, the proposed second-story addition has been set back from the place of the front facade.
Staff's findings of fact: Setting back the second-story addition to the rear of the historic structure will minimize the visual impact on the primary facade and allow the character defining elements mentioned above to remain prominent. An additional story, however, will result in a change to the building's proportions and profile.
3. All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed;
Applicable Design Guidelines:
8.4 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
B.6Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
Staff's discussion: The massing and contemporary style of the new construction provides some differentiation from the historic portion of the building. Since the wall of the addition is a continuation of the existing structure below on the west elevation, Staff recommends the horizontal board on top of the existing walls carry over to the new addition to further define the transition from old to new construction. The proposed materials for the new construction are clapboard siding with shingle siding in the north and south gable ends. The proposed roofing material and architectural detailing will match the existing materials. These materials are compatible with the style of the historic building and do not seek to imitate an earlier period or inaccurate variation on the historic style.
Staff's findings of fact: The proposed massing, style, and architectural details of the second-story addition differentiate it from the historic portion of the house. The proposed new construction meets this standard.
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;
Staff's discussion: The applicants propose to expand the small single-story addition on the rear of the house. Although the existing later addition will be sided with new clapboard, the original form of the addition will be retained and the new work is compatible with the historic character of the original building.
Staff's finding of fact: The character-defining elements of the later addition will be retained, if the proposed addition is constructed. The proposed project meets this standard.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;
Applicable Design Guidelines:
8.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Setback and addition from historically important primary facades in order to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Keep the addition visually subordinate to the historic building. If it is necessary to design an addition that is taller than the historic building, set it back substantially from significant facades and use a connector" to link it.
8.3 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the
front of a structure is inappropriate.
8.5 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, Joss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
8.5 Design a new addition to preserve the established massing and orientation of the historic building. For example, if the building historically had a horizontal emphasis, this orientation shall be continued in the addition.
8.6 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
8.7 When planning an addition to a building, preserve historic alignments that may exist on the street. Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings in the area may align at approximately the same height. An addition shall not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered or obscured.
8.8 Use exterior materials that are similar to the historic materials of the primary building on a new addition. Painted wood clapboard and brick are typical of many traditional additions. See a/so the discussion of specific building types and styles.
8.9 Minimize negative technical effects to original features when designing ad addition. Avoid construction methods, for example, that would cause vibration that may damage historic foundations. New alterations should a/so be designed in such a way that they can be removed without destroying original materials or features.
8.10 Use windows in the addition that are similar in character to those of the historic building or structure. If the historic windows are wood, double-hung for example, new windows should appear to be similar to them. Depending on the detailing, clad wood or synthetic materials may be considered.
Rooftop Additions
8.11 When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to the scale of the historic building. An addition shall not over hang the lower floors of the historic building in the front or on the side.
8.12 Set a rooftop addition back from the front of the building. This will help preserve the original profile of the historically significant building as seen from the street. A minimum setback often (10) feet is recommended. Greater flexibility may be considered in the setback of a dormer addition on a hipped or pyramidal roof.
8.13 The roof form and slope of the addition must be in character with the historic building. If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the addition shall be similar. Eave lines on the addition shall be subordinate to the overall roof mass and shall be in scale with the historic ones on similar historic structures.
Roofs on Additions
7.1 Preserve the original roof form. Avoid altering the angle of a historic roof. Instead maintain the perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street. Also retain and repair roof detailing.
7.2Preserve original roof materials where feasible. Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. Where replacement is necessary, use materials that are similar to the original in both style, s well as physical qualities. Use a color that is similar to that seen historically. Specialty materials such as tile or slate should be replaced with matching materials whenever feasible.
7.3 Preserve the original historic eave depth. The shadows created by traditional overhangs contribute to one's perception of the building's historic scale and therefore, these overhangs should be preserved. Cutting back roof rafters and soffits or in other ways altering the traditional roof overhand is therefore inappropriate.
7.4 Minimize the visual impact of skylights and other rooftop devices. The addition of features such as skylight or solar panels should not be installed in a manner such that they will interrupt the plane of the historic roof. They should be lower than the ridgeline, when possible. Flat skylights that are flush with the roof plane may be considered on the rear and sides of the roof locating a skylight on a front roof plane is inappropriate.
7.5 When planning a roof-top addition, preserve the overall appearance of the original roof. An addition should not interrupt the original ridgeline when possible.
Staff's discussion: Historically, dormers were added to an existing roof to create more usable space in attics. Additionally, shed dormers were typically used for bungalow roof additions. In this case, the applicants are proposing an extension of the existing slope of the roof on the addition that would interrupt the original ridgeline and alter the overall massing of the existing roof form. However, placing the new addition back from the front of the historic structure, where it does not directly affect the building's streetscape appearance, will help minimize any potential negative visual impacts on the historic character of the primary facade of the structure. The perceived line and orientation of the roof as seen from the street will be retained on the front of the building. The new addition has been designed to be clearly distinguishable from the historic structure, but is sympathetic with its historic character. The unusual roof form and new building profile differentiate the new roof-top addition from the historic portion of the house. Wood shingles are used on the gables of this building, as was commonly used historically on additions.
The proposed windows and doors are compatible in scale and proportion with the doors and windows seen on the historic building. The proposed dormer and skylight located on the east slope of the roof are unobtrusive. However, it is Staffs opinion that the swamp cooler currently shown on the dormer be moved to a less obtrusive location.
Staff's findings of fact: The primary facade and character-defining elements of the historic building as seen from the street will not be negatively affected by the construction of a new addition. The design of the addition generally makes use of the basic principles recommended by the City's design guidelines. This helps in ensuring that the essential form and integrity of the primary facade of the historic building will not be adversely affected by the new construction. The proposed roof-top addition is set back from the primary facade and is clearly distinguishable from the old in style, massing, and proportion.
12.Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and
City Council.
Staff's discussion: The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City includes a discussion on additions to historic structures. Specific guidelines that are applicable in this proposal as noted in the discussion of each standard. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed project is generally consistent with the standards in the design guidelines.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed project is consistent with the applicable standard in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Lew gave the following Staff recommendation: "Based on the analysis and findings of fact included in the staff report Staff recommends approval of the proposed addition with the following conditions: 1) This approval is for design only. The request must meet all other applicable City requirements; and 2) Final approval is delegated to Staff."
Ms. Lew indicated that she would like additional comments or direction from the Historic Landmark Commission regarding the swamp cooler which is shown on the new dormer on the east side of the roof. She added that Staff also made a recommendation regarding an extension of the horizontal board that is shown at the top of the wall of the older building and is recommending that this might be continued on west space, which would provide a greater definition of what is old and new. Ms. Lew circulated colored photographs of the property.
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Christensen asked if the horizontal board to which Ms. Lew referred is the same as the beltline. Ms. Lew said that it was and it continues on the west side as well. Mr. Christensen inquired if Staff proposed that it be continued in the new structure as a sense of continuity. Ms. Lew said that it would break up that wall and show a greater definition of what is old and new.
Ms. Rowland asked Staff if the Historic Landmark Commission has precedence for swamp cooler recommendations. Ms. Lew referred to 7.4 of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City regarding the minimization of visual impact of skylights and other rooftop devices. Ms. Rowland said that the location of a swamp cooler is very important to make them work well. Ms. Lew said that originally it was located to the rear and the Commission might discuss this with the applicant. She added that it seemed to her when it was discussed at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting the architect said that he might be able to do that.
There was some discussion that the swamp cooler should be lower than the ridge line of the house. Ms. Lew said that it might be lower than the new ridge line of the house on the drawings, but it is on the dormer. Ms. Giraud said that she did not think the Historic Landmark Commission could eliminate a swamp cooler. She added that the visual impact of the swamp cooler is rather awkward but necessary and they have been administratively approved. Ms. Rowland pointed out that swamp coolers were much like the utility boxes in neighborhoods.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Inga Regenass, the applicant, was present. She stated that she was the owner of the property. She indicated that she met with the architect and the builder and the swamp cooler will be located behind the proposed dormer.
Ms. Mickelsen 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 saying that he liked the revision of the windows and asked the applicant if she was comfortable with the revision. Ms. Regenass said she was. She said the windows would coordinate better with the windows in the existing house. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if anything else had changed, and Ms. Regenass said she did not believe so.
Ms. Rowland stated that Staff recommended a horizontal band and asked if the applicant was conducive with that suggestion. Ms. Regenass said that would not be a problem to have the band continued.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Fitzsimmons stated that he was in attendance at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting when this project was first reviewed. He said that he believed it was a suitable application and pointed out that the addition would set back from the front of the house. Mr. Fitzsimmons added that the applicant responded to the comments made at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting regarding the windows, and that the roof pitches would be appropriate for the existing house. He indicated that the street elevation would be suitable and that he felt good about the project.
Motion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to approve Case No. 023-03 of the proposed addition based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation with the following conditions: 1) that this approval is for design only. The request must meet all other applicable City requirements; 2) that the border or course be extended below the existing eaves on the west elevation along the new addition on the second floor; 3) that the swamp cooler be relocated behind the house; and 4) that Staff administratively approves the final plan. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown abstained. Ms. Heid, Mr. Simonsen, and Ms. White were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Parvaz moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 5:45 P.M.