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, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, and Wayne Mills.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Lee White. Scott Christensen, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, Wayne Mills, Principal Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Mickelsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the sites.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Ms. Mickelsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Donna Burdick, a resident in the Liberty Park neighborhood, stated that she was attending this meeting in regards to Liberty Park. She said that she has lived across from Liberty Park for many years and through the generations, Liberty Park has been very special to her and her family. Ms. Burdick mentioned all the improvements and restorations in Liberty Park, such as the Chase Mill and the Chase Home. She said that people have donated their time and money to make the Park a nice place. Ms. Burdick talked about the many trees that had been removed from the Park and not replaced. She said that it disturbed her to see much of the open space fenced off for commercial ventures, such as selling trucks, cars, boats, and "everything else to be sold" and she believed that there were other places that would be more appropriate for those kinds of business enterprises so families enjoying Liberty Park would not have to be confronted with such commercialism.
Ms. Burdick also said that there are a lot of people who play tennis at Liberty Park, including her children and grandchildren. She said that since all the parks were getting tennis bubbles, she thought that Liberty Park did not need to have one. Ms. Burdick pointed out that the proposed tennis bubble would be very large and she would barely be able to see the beautiful trees covered with snow in the wintertime over the top of the bubble. She expressed concern about who would pay for the heating, lighting, and the maintenance of the bubble. Ms. Burdick said that she was opposed to building the tennis bubble in Liberty Park, but she did not think her opinion would matter very much. She thanked the Commission for hearing her pleas.
Ms. Melissa Barbanell, a resident in the Liberty Park neighborhood, stated that she prepared written comments and attachments, which consisted of letters that was sent to the Planning Director and a petition of signatures of people who are concerned about the process, in which the tennis bubble was approved. She passed out copies to the Commissioners, of which a copy was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Ms. Barbanell said that she had spoken with the Chair of the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Soren Simonsen last week regarding the tennis bubble. She said that the officials in the Planning Division made an administrative decision to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the bubble under the premises that it would be a minor alteration to an historic site. Ms. Barbanell said that she took issue with that it was a minor alteration. She indicated that it seemed like it should have been considered new construction of a principal building or a substantial alteration. Ms. Barbanell said that she understood that the new clubhouse, the gazebo, the bridge, the bath houses, the Paralympics monument, signs, and refurbishing the duck pond had gone through the process of being reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Barbanell said that she was told that the criteria for the administrative decision for the tennis bubble was that it was a temporary structure and would only be up for six months of the year, and those other structures and improvements were permanent.
Ms. Barbanell noted that the tennis bubble would be about 2, 600 square feet, 119 feet wide, and 220 feet long. She said that she was sure that it would be a lot bigger footprint than any other structure in the Park. Ms. Barbanell stated that she did not know if that mattered in determining whether or not it would be a substantial alteration, but she thought it should. She reported that she had been reviewing the ordinances and a building is defined as an enclosure intended to keep out the elements. She added that it seemed to her that the tennis bubble would fall under that definition. Ms. Barbanell commented that the ordinance does not mention "temporary" and whether or not a structure would be up year around or not.
Ms. Barbanell stated that she attended the meeting to request that the Historic Landmark Commission put a stay on the construction of the bubble until there could be a public hearing on the matter. She said that the people who live near Liberty Park received no notification, and had no opportunity to comment or address the tennis bubble. Ms. Barbanell said that she learned about the proposed tennis bubble from people who played tennis in the Park. She said again that she did not feel that the process was proper or appropriate. Ms. Barbanell reported that she hoped the members of the Commission would require a public hearing before the project would be allowed to go forth.
Ms. Barbanell stated that it was also her understanding that in the event the Commission would not hold a public hearing, her only avenue would be to appeal the administrative decision to the Board of Adjustment; however, she said that she would much rather have the Commission hold a public hearing because there were many citizens who were concerned about the impact the tennis bubble would have in the neighborhood and the process in which the tennis bubble was approved. She said that she realized the bubble would be a good thing for people who play tennis, to have the ability to play inside during the winter months, but again expressed her concern about the dramatic impact that it would have in the neighborhood. She thanked the Commissioners for their time.
Mr. Ashdown inquired if the Commission needed to address the issue of the Board of Adjustment appeal in a motion. Ms. Giraud said that the Planning Division staff and the Deputy City Attorney determined that the proper avenue for an appeal would be to petition the Board of Adjustment regarding the administrative decision. She added that the Board of Adjustment would have a public hearing. Ms. Giraud indicated that the issue was not noticed for this Historic Landmark Commission agenda, therefore, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to make a motion regarding this issue at this meeting.
As there were no additional remarks, Ms. Mickelsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Con1n1ission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Wheelwright excused Mr. Zunguze, the Planning Director, for not attending the meeting but he had conflicting meetings with the Mayor. Mr. Wheelwright said that he had nothing to report.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to approve the minutes of the September 15, 2004 meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White voted "Aye". Ms. Heid abstained. Mr. Christensen and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 025-04. at 634 No. West Capitol Street. by Lewis and Maureen Downey, represented by David Richardson. architect. requesting approval to construct an addition and to make alterations to the existing house. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Wayne Mills 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.
The following is an overview of the project:
The applicants are requesting approval to alter and construct an addition to a single-family dwelling located at 364 No. West Capitol Street. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District and SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District. The single-family dwelling was constructed in 1948. The home is fifty years old and maintains the size, form, and style typical to single-family homes developed during the post war years; therefore, it can be considered a contributing building in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The subject dwelling is approximately 568 square feet in size, is clad with composite shingled siding, and has an asphalt shingle roof.
On July 19, 2000 a proposal was presented to the Historic Landmark Commission for an alteration and addition to the subject home (Case No. 020-00). The request had a similar building plan as the current request; however, the plan differed in siding and roof materials. The Historic Landmark Commission approved the request with the condition that the applicant meet with the Architectural Subcommittee (which is now called the Architectural Committee) for further development of details regarding the material and color of the stucco and the roof, window, driveway, grassy slope, and landscaping. The applicant met with the Architectural Subcommittee on two separate occasions (July 26, 2000 and August 9, 2000). The subcommittee discussed issues regarding the roof design and siding, but the applicant took no final action.
On September 24, 2003, the applicant presented a proposal to the Architectural Subcommittee for a different design of the addition to the home on the subject property. At that time, it was suggested that the applicant submit an application to the full Commission because the new design was substantially different than the prior request. There was no application made to the full Commission at that time.
The current request is a similar design as the first request that was presented to the Historic Landmark Commission; however, the applicant is retaining the original materials on the existing structure and is proposing different materials on the addition.
The applicant is proposing the following alternations/restorations to the existing single-family dwelling:
The existing shed roof addition to the rear of the structure would be removed. Staff can find no building permit record of the construction of this addition.
Replacement of the existing asphalt shingle roof with a new asphalt shingle roof.
Relocation of the existing front door. The doorway is proposed to be covered over the existing composite shingles from the homeowners stock and the existing narrow porch cover would be removed. The doorway is proposed to be relocated to the south, within the requested addition and the new door would be a full glass wood, French door.
Replacement or restoration of the existing picture and double-hung windows located on the west facade.
The applicant is also requesting approval to construct an addition to the single-family dwelling. The request consists of an approximate 448 square foot (footprint) "great room" addition to the rear of the home, an approximate 84 square foot (footprint) entryway addition to the south of the home, and an approximate 675 square foot garage (footprint) with living space above, which is attached to the southeast corner of the main dwelling.
The applicant proposes the following materials for the additions:
Addition to the rear of the dwelling (Great Room Addition).
Asphalt shingle roof with two-foot eave overhang and exposed soffits.
EIFS (Exterior Insulated and Finish System), which is a synthetic stucco siding.
12" x 12" fixed glass panels on the south elevation.
Pella "pro-line" awning windows on the north and east elevations.
Double wood French doors on the east elevation.
Addition to the south of the dwelling (new entryway into home).
Hardiboard or equivalent composite horizontal lap siding.
Shed-type roof with asphalt shingles.
Salvaged windows from the existing addition to the rear of the home. This addition is proposed to be removed.
This addition is the proposed location for the front door. The doorway entrance would be from the west side (front) of the home, the same side as it is today. The new door would be a full glass wood, French door from the owners stock of used doors.
Garage addition.
Asphalt shingle roof with two foot eave overhang and exposed soffits.
Exposed concrete exterior surface at garage level.
Hardiboard or equivalent composite horizontal lap siding on the second story above the garage. Double-hung windows on the west and south elevations.
Martin "Hi-Tensil" steel garage door.
Pella-pro-line" awning windows on the east elevation.
Mr. Mills referred to Section 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance and said that the following standards are pertinent to this application:
G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the Planning Director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
Staff's discussion: The subject structure has been used historically as a single-family dwelling and would be used as such with the requested restoration and addition.
Staff's finding of fact: The property will be used for its historic purpose as a single-family dwelling.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Staff's discussion: The applicants are proposing to maintain the existing siding on the home and to replace the existing roof material with asphalt shingles, similar to the existing material. Staff is of the opinion that this is consistent with the following Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:
2.1 Preserve the historic appearance of original materials. Preservation includes proper maintenance of the material to prevent deterioration.
7.2 Preserve 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 as 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
Staff's finding of fact: The property will be used for its historic purpose as a single-family dwelling.
The submitted plans also show that the picture window and double-hung window on the front facade of the existing structure are to be restored or replaced. This approach is in keeping with the following Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, Muntins, mullions, glazing, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operation, and groupings of windows. Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them whenever conditions permit.
3.5 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window should also be double-hung, or at a minimum appear to be so. Match the replacement also in the number and position of glass panes. Matching the original design is particularly important on key character-defining facades.
3.6 Match the profile of the sash and its components, as closely as possible to that of the original window. A historic wood window has a complex profile-within its casing, the sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane of the wall. The profiles of wood windows a/so a double-hung window, for example, to bring a rich texture to the simplest structure. In general, it is best to replace wood windows with wood on contributing structures, especially on the primary facade. Non-wood materials, such as vinyl or aluminum, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the following will be considered: Will the original casing be preserved? Will the glazing be substantially diminished? What finish is proposed? Most importantly, what is the profile of the proposed replacement window?
3.7 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original. Using the same material as the original is preferred, especially on key character-defining Facades. However, a substitute material may be considered in secondary locations if the appearance of the window components will match those of the original in dimension, profile, and finish.
Staff's discussion: The existing front door is located within the middle of the existing front facade and is covered with a narrow porch-like roof. The applicant is proposing to relocate the front doorway to the south, within the south addition and replace the door with a full glass wood French door.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City states:
1.1 Preserve the functional, proportional and decorative features of a primary entrance. Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These may include: the door, doorframe, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms, and flanking sidelights. Avoid changing the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances. If necessary, use replacement doors with designs and finishes similar to historic doors.
The submitted proposal does change the position of the original primary entrance; however, the requested location of the front door would place it in the center of the dwelling and requested addition. By doing so, the symmetry of the home would be maintained.
Staff's finding of fact: The character-defining elements of the property will be preserved and reinforced by the proposed project if the final plans for the windows conform to the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;
Staff's discussion: Although unlikely, the proposed work would be reversible, and the building could be returned to its historic size and appearance without destroying the essential form and integrity of the building.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City offers the following guidance on the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of an addition:
8.2 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Set back an addition from historically important primary 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. For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eave lines should be avoided.
8.3 .Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Locating an addition at the front of a structure is inappropriate.
8.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. An addition shall be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also remaining visually compatible with these earlier features. A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a differentiation between historic and more current styles are all techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new construction. Creating a jog in the foundation between the original building and the addition also may establish a more sound structural design to resist earthquake damage, while helping to define it as a later addition.
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 Do not construct a new addition or alteration that will hinder one's ability to interpret the historic character of the building or structure. A new addition that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of the building is inappropriate. An alteration that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the building is inappropriate. In addition, an alteration that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation on the historic style is inappropriate. An alteration that covers historically significant features is inappropriate, as well.
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 also the discussion of specific building types and styles.
8.9 Minimize negative technical effects to original features when designing an addition. Avoid construction methods, for example that would cause vibration that may damage historic foundations. New alterations also should be designed in such a way that they can be removed without destroying original materials or features.
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.
Ground Level Additions.
8.14 Keep a new addition physically and visually subordinate to the historic building. The addition shall be set back significantly from primary Facades. A minimum set back of 10 feet is recommended. The addition should be consistent with the scale and character of the historic building or structure. Large additions should be separated from the historic building by using a smaller connecting element to link the two.
8.15 Roof forms shall be similar to those of the historic building. Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are appropriate. Flat roofs are generally inappropriate.
8.16 On primary Facades of an addition, use a solid-to-void ratio that is similar to that of the historic building. The solid-to-void ratio is the relative percentage of wall to windows and doors seen on a facade.
Staffs discussion: Although the requested addition is larger in footprint and taller than the original structure, the mass of the addition is set back from the front of the home (the front of the garage is located 30 feet back from the front of the existing home). The addition can be recognized separately from the original structure by use of different materials (stucco on the addition to the rear, lap siding on the addition to the south, and exposed concrete and lap siding on the garage addition); however, the structure maintains a compatible horizontal emphasis and maintains the same roof pitch as the existing structure. Also, the addition as seen on the front {west) elevation contains double-hung windows similar to the double-hung windows on the existing building.
Staff's finding of fact: The design of the addition takes steps recommended by the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City to ensure that the essential form and integrity of the building would not be impaired, the addition and alterations are compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features, and to differentiate the new work from the old. Also, the addition could be removed without damaging the essential form and integrity of the original structure.
12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council.
Staff's discussion: The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City includes an extensive discussion on additions to historic structures. Specific guidelines that are applicable in this case are noted in the discussion of each standard. It is staff's opinion that the proposed project is in keeping with all of the standards in the design guidelines.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed work meets the applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Mr. Mills offered the following staff recommendation: "Based on the review and findings of fact noted in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the project as proposed and further recommends that final approval be delegated to staff if any minor revisions or additional details are required by the City."
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Ashdown noted that the square footage would triple with the proposed project. Mr. Mills said that the square footage would be a little over double the size. Ms. Heid added that it would be over 1, 100 square feet.
Ms. Mickelsen said that she may not be reading the plans right but the staff report said, "the requested location of the front door would place it in the center of the dwelling and requested addition". She said that the door did not appear to be in the middle of the front facade. Mr. Mills said that the front door would be approximately in the middle, as seen on the front elevation drawing.
Mr. Ashdown stated that he was concerned about 8.2, Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. He inquired if staff felt that the size and scale would be compatible with the new building because the size of the structure would be significantly increased and that it would be compatible with the massing along the street. Mr. Mills responded by saying that it would be a substantially large addition, however it is set back considerably from the front of the dwelling. He added that the way the home is situated with the topographical change it is considerably higher than the street level so he did not believe that the project would affect the massing of the street.
Ms. Giraud stated that the existing house is only 568 square feet and is smaller than the other houses on that street. She remarked that the street had evolved into a mixture of many different styles and much new construction. Ms. Giraud also said that she believed the way the architect designed it, broken up into modules, it would not be just one enormous addition and would not consume the house. She said that the architect has taken care so the original house reads on its own in terms of the massing and the roofline.
Mr. Ashdown said that there are one or two houses behind this subject property on Victory Road and inquired if the size of the project would compromise the view of those houses.
Ms. Giraud stated that one of the houses sits obliquely from them to the south and she did not know if the project would obstruct the view. However, she said, the ordinance does not address views except in the Foothill Zones. Mr. Fitzsimmons pointed out how steep the street is and did not think it would impact those houses above.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Lewis Downey, the applicant, as well as his architect, Mr. Dave Richardson, were present. Mr. Richardson said that he was aware of the history of this project and similar designs have been before the Commission on other occasions. Mr. Richardson said that the design submitted at this meeting is almost exactly the same as the floor plan from previous designs with some slight changes in materials. He said that the massing and fenestration were addressed in such a way as to break the project up so that it would enhance the existing dwelling and not detract from it.
Mr. Richardson said that the subject house currently shares a driveway with the house above which is higher up the hill. He added that the Commission discovered how steep the driveway is on their field trip. Mr. Richardson pointed out that the back of the house will be in the ground six feet so it would not have a visual impact on the other homes.
Mr. Richardson said that he agreed with the information in the staff report. He said that he hoped the Commission would approve the proposal with the condition that the applicant would work with staff on some minor changes that have been discovered.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by asking when this proposal was before the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Giraud said that it was July 19, 2000 for an alteration and addition to the subject home. She said that it went to the Architectural Subcommittee (now called the Architectural Committee) on July 26, 2000 and August 9, 2000. Ms. Giraud continued by saying that on September 24, 2003, the applicant presented a proposal to the Architectural Subcommittee for a different design of the addition to the home on the subject property but this proposal never came before the full Commission.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked what the changes were. Mr. Richardson pointed out that after the grading plan was analyzed, one double-hung window in the rear would be changed to an awning window and the owner has requested a slight change in fenestration on the east side. Mr. Richardson said that in addition, the applicant would like to have the option of either an enclosed front porch or an open one, something that might ·fit better with the massing of the existing house. He added that the third issue is the overhangs on the proposed addition. Mr. Richardson said that there is only an eight-inch overhang on the existing house on the east elevation excluding the rain gutter. He added that the gable ends have no overhang. Mr. Richardson said that the applicant would like the option after consulting with a structural engineer of paring back the roof overhang so it would be more in line with the existing house. Ms. Mickelsen asked where the front door would be if the entry was changed. Mr. Richardson said that the location of the front door would not change. He said that he believed, from an architectural standpoint, the project would work well with the grade of the land, with the way it sets back from the street, and the compatibility of the rooflines. Ms. Mickelsen inquired if the stairs would still go up to the front entry. Mr. Richardson said that there were existing railroad ties that are used as stairs and they would be coming out, depending on the budget when they get to that part of the development. He mentioned that it was difficult to see the house from the street because of the amazing topography of the area.
• Ms. Rowland said that the front entry would not be considered a front porch. Mr. Richardson said that it would be more of an enclosed front entry. Ms. Rowland asked Mr. Richardson if he was referring to the driveway into the proposed garage when he talked about the steep grade of the driveway. Mr. Richardson pointed out the existing contours on the plot plan. He stated that the proposed driveway would blend with the existing shared driveway until it could be wide enough to act on its own and at that point the grade changes to the driveway would meet the City requirement of a 10 percent grade. Mr. Richardson said that it was deceiving on the site plan.
• Mr. Parvaz pointed out the four windows on the middle part of the building on the north elevation and inquired if that would be the kitchen. Mr. Richardson concurred and said that the lower windows would be counter level and the upper two would be clerestory windows.
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:
Ms. Shirley McLaughlan, a resident of the area, inquired if the applicant had obtained a geological study on the possibility of bedrock in the area because she asked that there would not be any more blasting. Mr. Downey said that he had not, but the plans were to use a backhoe hammer to loosen the soil.
Upon hearing no additional requests ·from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Mickelsen said that the Chair would entertain a motion at any time or continue the discussion.
Ms. Rowland said that she did not ask her usual question about using two separate single garage doors rather than one double door, because she thought it was obvious due to the topography and the narrowness of the driveway. She pointed out that the double door would not be very visible from the street.
There was a short discussion regarding the issues at hand and the wording of a motion. Ms. Giraud said that if the Commission recommends sending the project to the Architectural Committee, it would have to come back to the full Commission for final approval.
Motion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to approve the request, as submitted, for Case No. 025-04 at 634 No. West Capitol Street based on staff's findings of fact and recommendation, and authorizing staff to review the minor changes on the following: 1) modifications to the entryway; 2) changing the window for the garage on the south elevation for a type of window that would adjust to the grade of the land; 3) adjustment of the eave overhang on the proposed addition; and 4) any other minor changes not mentioned. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 026-04, at 466 No. Wall Street by Dr. Joel Ehrenkranz. represented by Allen Roberts. architect. requesting approval to construct a single-family home. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud stated that she had additional information for this project. She circulated copies to the Commission, of which a copy was filed with the minutes. Ms. Mickelsen asked if Ms. Giraud would like to discuss the additional information. Ms. Giraud suggested that the architect could better explain the additional drawings and information.
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.
The following is an overview of the project:
Dr. Joel Ehrenkranz, represented by Mr. Allen Roberts, architect, is requesting approval to build a new house, approximately 5, 000 square feet, on a vacant lot at 466 No. Wall Street. The lot is zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, the purpose of which is to "maintain the unique character of older predominantly low density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes, and bulk characteristics" [City Zoning Ordinance 21A.24.080(A)]. The lot is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
This lot is located on the east side of Wall Street and slopes up to the east. The design proposed is two-and a-half stories and measures 30 feet to the mid-point of the roof ridge on the west (street) elevation. The proposed materials are Red Butte sandstone veneer, cast-stone quoins and lintels, and stucco on the chimney. Cedar shingles are proposed for the roof, and a copper roof is proposed for the chimney stack. The front gable roof would have a 7:12 pitch, as would the dormers on the east and south elevations.
A semi-circular projection is a major feature of the street elevation. This projection is one-and-a-half stories in height and terminates in a balcony with a metal railing for the second-story. For the most part, the windows are one-over-one in their light configuration, and are characterized by two lintel shapes: pointed surrounds and straight. Metal clad windows are proposed. The windows on the main story of the projection are vertically oriented and single pane. They extend almost the full height of the wall, and are broken by a narrow band of wall material, about one-third up the window. The south elevation is dominated by a 15-foot high round, arched window, surrounded by the same cast-stone quoins seen on corners and under the gables.
The house would be accessed by a curved driveway, with a two-car garage incorporated at the south-east corner of the house.
This project conforms to the base yard and bulk requirements of the SR-1 zone, which includes:
Minimum lot area for a single-family house is 5, 000 square feet. This lot is approximately 11, 761 square feet. Minimum lot width is 50 feet. This lot is 100 feet.
Maximum building height in a SR-1 district is 30 feet (measured to the midpoint of the roof) or two and-one-half stories, whichever is less. The revised drawings show that the house is 30 feet to the midpoint of the roof. The proposed work meets this requirement.
Setback requirements in an SR-1 zone are 25 percent of the lot depth or 25 feet in the front yard (whichever is less- 33 feet on this lot); 4 feet on one side yard and 10 feet on the other side yard; and 25 percent of the lot depth, but not less than 15 feet and need not exceed 30 feet in the rear yard (25 percent of the lot depth of this lot is 33 feet).
The proposed building has setbacks of 30 feet in the front yard, 4 feet on the north side yard. 53 feet on the south side yard, and 25 feet in the rear yard. The proposed work meets these requirements.
21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District in the Salt Lake City Zoning 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.
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.
The following are applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:
Mass and Scale.
11.4 Construct 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-and-one-half 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.
11.5 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block. Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to buildings seen traditionally.
11.6 Design 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. The primary plane of the front should not appeal taller than those of typical historic structures in the block. A single wall plane should not exceed the typical maximum facade width in the district.
Height.
11.7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district. This is an important standard which should be met in all projects.
11.8 The 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.
11.9 Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings. If a building would be wider overall than structures seen historically, the facade should be divided into subordinate planes that are similar in width to those of the context.
Building from 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. Shed roofs are appropriate for some additions. Roof pitches should be 6:12 or greater. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. They are appropriate for multiple apartment buildings, duplexes, and fourplexes. In commercial areas, a wider variety of roof forms may occur.
Capitol Hill Historic District Architectural Standards: Building form.
13.18 Design a new building to be similar in scale to those seen historically in the neighborhood. In the Marmalade subdistrict, homes tended to be more modest, with heights ranging from one to two stories, while throughout Arsenal Hill larger, grander homes reached two-and-one-half to three stories. Front Facades should appear similar in height to those seen historically on the block.
13.19 Design a new building with a primary form that is similar to those seen historically. In most cases, the primary form for the house was a single rectangular volume. In some style, smaller, subordinate masses were then attached to this primary form. New buildings should continue this tradition.
Staff's discussion: Nearby buildings are residential structures. Generally, the buildings in the vicinity of the subject property are characterized by a mix of styles, forms, and materials, and vary from single family houses to multi-family structures in a range of number of units from duplexes to condominiums. Directly to the north, at the corner of Wall and Zane Streets, is a condominium development of at 18 units, characterized by a flat roof and shingled walls. Directly to the south, up the slope, is a brick, multi gabled Victorian house. Contributing buildings that are Tudor Revival in style and bungalows with different roof forms from the streetscape further south up the steep hill of Wall Street.
Across the street at 475 No. Wall Street is a box-car apartment building, a 1970's era duplex with a low pitched roof and a carport in the front yard, and a four-square, unique because of its open, two-and-one half story porch. The proposed height of 30 feet will be substantially taller than the height of the surrounding buildings, but to a large degree this is due to the steep and complex topography of the lot. The height will be mitigated in terms of its visual relationship with the contributing structures to the south because of the wide lot and the setback.
The 7:12 front roof pitch is within the range of roof pitches suggested in the City's design guidelines, and is similar to surrounding buildings with front-gabled roofs seen in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
The proposed building is approximately 5, 000 square feet, on two-and-one-half levels, and would be 29 feet wide. This square footage includes the garage. The surrounding buildings range from 1, 789 square feet, and most do not have accessory structures. Because the house is not wider than the nearby
house, and its bulk is contained in its length, which is pushed toward an upward slope to the east, staff has determined that the square footage of the house is not out of keeping with the surrounding buildings.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed new house is similar in terms of Width, Proportion of Principal Facades, Roof Shape, and Scale to the surrounding structures and typical structures in this part of the Capitol Hill Historic District. While it is within the height limit allowed in the SR-1 zone, and is not out of character in terms of height for several of the nearby buildings, the high ground of the lot will make the proposed home's height a prominent feature of the design.
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.
The following are applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:
Solid-to-void ratio.
13.18 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 font facade. See the discussions of individual districts and of typical historic building styles for more details about facade proportions.
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.
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.
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. See also the discussions of the character of the relevant historic district and architectural styles.
11.22 Frame windows and doors in materials that appeal 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. (See also the rehabilitation section on windows as well as the discussions of specific historic districts and relevant architectural styles.)
11.23 Windows shall be simple in shape. Odd window shapes such as octagons, circles, diamonds, etc. are discouraged.
Staff's discussion: With the exception of the round-arched window on the south elevation and the windows on the semi-circular projection, the proportion of openings and the ratio of solids-to-voids are regular, and are in keeping with those seen on this street. The round-arched window is on a secondary elevation, and will be set back far enough from the street that it will not disrupt the visual regularity of the windows on the front of the house as seen from the street. While the round-arched window deviates from the solid-to-void ratio seen in the neighborhood, it is similar to the stained glass windows that illuminate stairwells in homes that date from the early twentieth century.
The single-light windows on the projection differ in their style and proportion from the traditional one over-one light windows on the house, but these windows will be in a different wall plane, and can be interpreted as the architect's "nod" to the incorporation of contemporary design in a house with traditional massing.
The projection, with its windows and metal railing, breaks up the massing, and again, can be considered a contemporary interpretation of a traditional porch. The front door is oriented to the street, and the landing associated with the primary entrance is demarcated by its own half wall.
The use of sandstone is unusual for Capitol Hill, probably because this has always been a more expensive material than brick, stucco, or wood. The Historic Landmark Commission has allowed stone veneers on houses recently constructed in the district. Although unusual, staff does not take issue with the use of stone, as it will be laid in a coursed rubble pattern (stones to be irregular in size and shape, but laid in roughly horizontal courses). Sizes and samples of the stone have not been provided to staff as of this writing, but the Commission should require that the size of the stones will be of a module that is consistent with the masonry patterns seen in the district. The architect is proposing to use pipe railing for the projection. While the staff has determined, and the Commission has approved, metal railings on new construction, staff finds that the use of pipe railing is not compatible with the extensive use of a traditional material such as stone, in that the material and design is more commonly used for industrial or commercial purposes.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed house is visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape in terms of Proportion of Openings, Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades, Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projects, with the exception of the large window on the south elevation. Staff does not take issue with this feature, as it is typical of prominent, elaborate windows used historically on large homes. The use of stone is compatible with the district, but the architect must ensure that the pattern and size of the stone is compatible with the scale of the structure and the materials found in the district. The relationship of the pipe railing to the stone is incongruous, and is not in keeping with residential design in the district.
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.
The following are applicable standards in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City:
Setback.
13.15 Maintain he traditional setback and alignment of buildings to the buildings to the street, as established by traditional street patterns. Historically, the Marmalade district developed irregular setbacks and lot shapes. Many homes were built toward compass points, with the street running at diagonals. This positioning, mixed with variations in slope, caused rows of staggered houses, each with limited views of the streetscape. Staggered setbacks are appropriate in this part of the district because of the historical development. Traditionally, smaller structures were located closer to the street, while larger ones tended to be set back further.
13.16 Keep the side yard setbacks of a new structure or an addition similar to those seen traditionally in the subdistrict or block. Follow the traditional building pattern in order to continue the historic character of the street. Consider the visual impact of new construction and additions on neighbors along side yards. In response, consider varying the setback and height of the structure along the side yard.
13.17 Orient the front of a primary structure to the street. Define the entry with a porch or portico. 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 plans 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. See also Section 1.0.
Staff's discussion: Because of the steep grade on this part of Wall Street, a "wall of continuity'' is not in the immediate vicinity from which the applicant or architect can use as a context. The lot is wide and vacant, and is much higher over the street than the homes to the south or the condominiums to the north. The proposed siting is consistent with the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City in that it is oriented to the street and it follows the directive of setting large houses back from the street. The applicant has not supplied landscaping or retaining wall details.
Staff's finding of fact: 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 properties within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: The architect has discussed the possibility of splitting the lot for another home to the south. The lot is sufficiently large and wide for this. At that time, subdivision issues, such as cross-access agreements for the shared use of the driveway would have to be resolved. These issues, and the possibility of splitting the lot, are not issues before the Commission at this time.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "Based upon the findings of fact in this staff report and the information supplied by the applicant, staff recommended conceptual approval of the design and referral to the Architectural Committee for refinement of details, including the following: 1) that the use of an alternative design for the railing be considered; 2) that plans be submitted for materials, design and size of the retaining walls; and 3) any other items raised by the Commission during its discussion."
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Ms. Mickelsen pointed out the oculus windows. Mr. Ashdown wondered if stained glass was proposed for the window. Ms. Giraud said that she was not sure and to ask the architect.
Mr. Parvaz asked about the proposed retaining wall. Ms. Giraud pointed out on the site plan where the proposed retaining wall would be constructed next to the driveway and in the rear; however she suggested conversing with the architect. Mr. Parvaz made reference to the property line shown on the plat.
Ms. Rowland inquired about the height of the proposed chimney element. Ms. Giraud said that zoning ordinance addresses height. Mr. Fitzsimmons said that a chimney has to be a certain height above the roof. Ms. Rowland remembered when the Commission reviewed the Bell Tower in Pioneer Park, which exceeded the height. Ms. Giraud said that was also an institutional use.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Dr. Joel Ehrenkranz, the applicant, and his architect, Mr. Allen Roberts, were present. The applicants used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Roberts said that Dr. Ehrenkranz recently purchased the lot.
Dr. Ehrenkranz stated that he is currently living in the Capitol Hill Historic District in a house that was built in 1862, which increased his sensitivity towards the area. He said that his overriding desire was to do everything possible to design and construct a home that would fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Roberts said that he has lived in this historic neighborhood for 37 years, while Dr. Ehrenkranz was new to the Capitol Hill area.
Mr. Roberts added that after researching the Sidwell and Sanborn maps and after digging a trench the entire length of the lot and found no evidence of a basement or foundation, they determined that there was never any evidence that a structure had ever been built on the lot. Mr. Roberts said that the trench was dug to determine whether there were any seismic fault lines running through the lot and there were none. He mentioned that the ground was not really bedrock and described the contents of the soil.
Mr. Roberts said that Ms. Giraud did a very thorough job of analyzing the problems presented by the lot and the approach to the solutions. Mr. Roberts displayed samples of stone. He said that the applicant would like to have some latitude of selecting the type of stone that is most affordable. He added that all the types of stone that was displayed have been located and are available. Mr. Roberts said that the applicant would like to use real stone. He spoke of the stone houses that were in the area and added that unfortunately some have been covered with stucco.
Mr. Roberts pointed out the Red Butte sandstone that the applicant proposed. He said that Red Butte sandstone is no longer being produced, but they had located 50 tons of it from a destroyed historic building. Mr. Roberts said that it would be cut into 4-inch veneer stone pieces and used for the outside of the house. He also talked about the other stones, such as the Torrey sandstone. Mr. Roberts mentioned that a light limestone would be used for the trim, so there would be a color contrast. Mr. Roberts said that there would be other options, as well. He referred to the synthetic stone, which is a product that was used at Fort Douglas and other places. He added that one could not tell the difference between the synthetic stone and the real stone.
Mr. Roberts talked about the oculus windows, which has no precedence in the neighborhood. However, he said, that there are a few in the city. Mr. Roberts stated that when he first met the applicant, Dr. Ehrenkranz brought him photographs of buildings that had the architectural features he liked, and an oculus window was one of those elements. He said that an oculus window was proposed on both the front and the back elevations.
Mr. Roberts stated that the large window on the south elevation would not be highly visible from the public vantage point, and the model precedence for that type of window was other historic homes that have a large window illuminating a grand stairway. Mr. Roberts mentioned that the ceilings on the second floor would be vaulted and the windows would illuminate the wide corridor/gallery on that floor.
Referring to the height of the chimney, Mr. Roberts said that the building code required the chimney to be at least two feet up and ten feet out from the roof. He pointed out the proposed copper roof on the chimney because it would not be combustible.
Mr. Roberts spoke of the proposed apse, the rounded element, which would have to be off-centered on the front elevation because the front door has to be located on the front elevation and not on the side, as originally planned. Mr. Roberts said that he drove Dr. Ehrenkranz around the Capitol Hill area looking at the architecture. He said that they noticed how eclectic the buildings are in style, form, height, materials, detailing, and how asymmetrical the Victorian houses are so he felt like moving the apse off center would be consistent with the asymmetrical nature of the large number of buildings in the neighborhood.
Mr. Roberts focused on the proposed pipe railing and said that it would be refined. He proposed using a metal railing with no newels cast in the pattern. Mr. Roberts described the proposed railing in detail. Mr. Roberts said that the step detail under the railing was found to be too ornamental, so it was removed from the plans and replaced with standard fascia and molding like most of the houses in the area.
Mr. Roberts reported that Ms. Karen Maloney, who owns the adjoining property, was mentioned in the additional information submitted in this meeting. He said that she expressed concern that her view would be impacted by the proposed structure. Mr. Roberts said that he assured her that her eye level would be 16 feet higher than the tallest part of the proposed building, due to the topography of the area, and the structure would be built 118 feet away.
Mr. Roberts said that he met with Mr. Larry Butcher, who is Development Review Supervisor, in the City's Building Services Division, for specific information on retaining walls. He said that the retaining walls would vary in height, but nothing over six feet tall. Mr. Roberts indicated that the proposed retaining walls would be reinforced concrete with a ledger of stone veneer with a cap so the retaining walls would be compatible with the house.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion and inquired if stone would be used on all four elevations of the proposed structure. Mr. Roberts confirmed that. Mr. Parvaz mentioned the copper roof. Mr. Roberts said that the copper roof would only be used on the chimney, the rest of the roof would be sawn cedar shingles, treated with a mixture of linseed oil and graphite to preserve the roof. He added that the structure would be trimmed with wood. When asked about the windows, Mr. Roberts said that the applicant was proposing metal clad windows, enameled with color. Mr. Parvaz said that he encouraged the applicant to use real stone.
• Mr. Ashdown talked about the proposed dyed plaster and asked what the lifetime was on the color. Mr. Roberts stated that if the dyed synthetic plaster is homogeneously dyed, the color would be embedded in the plaster and should last indefinitely. He added that the color would be the color of the reddish stone. Mr. Roberts said that they thought that was one place they could economize because it would be in the back and not very visible. However, he said, that it could be clad in stone. Mr. Ashdown said that he had seen dyed concrete that had faded in just a few years. Mr. Roberts said that he lives in an historic house that was built in 1875 which has dyed plaster that still has its color, although a little faded after all those years.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons introduced the subject of subdividing the property and asked the applicant if he was serious about splitting the property and building another single family home. Mr. Roberts said that the property has been two lots. He mentioned that the former owner joined the properties together with the hope of building a triplex on it. Mr. Roberts said that when he found out that the property was not zoned for a triplex, (duplex was maximum), he decided to sell it. He described how another home could be constructed with parallel setbacks where both homes would share the driveway.
• Ms. Rowland mentioned that staff recommended that this project go the Architectural Committee to refine the details. Ms. Giraud said that it could, but the recommendation was in error and should have been deleted in the staff report. She also said that if the Historic Landmark Commission refers the project to the Architectural Committee, the project must go back to the full Commission for final approval. Ms. Rowland pointed out the different elements that needed reviewing, such as the details on the windows, the retaining wall, and the front door. She said that she assumed that the half round would be glass window. Mr. Roberts referred to the schematic wall section that was included in the staff report showing the window setbacks. He said that the door is a standard design with the glass panel above. Mr. Roberts added that the applicant's preference would be to have approval at this meeting, with the details being worked out with staff because Dr. Ehrenkranz would like to move ahead with this project. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the large window would have stained glass. Mr. Roberts replied by saying that stained glass has not been discussed with the applicant, but clear glass was proposed so light would get into the second floor. Mr. Ashdown inquired if the proposal called for cut glass or straight glass. Mr. Roberts said that the windows would be double paned with clear glass. When asked about the material for the eyebrow element, Mr. Roberts said that limestone would probably be used for the quoins, the lintels, the trim around the oculus, the Roman arch, and the sills.
• Ms. Giraud stated that if the applicant decides to use a synthetic material, rather than the real stone, for the primary walls, the material might have to be reviewed by the full Commission. A discussion took place regarding the proposed materials. Mr. Roberts described the quality of the materials.
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 said that the Chair would entertain a motion or continue the discussion. There was no further discussion.
Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved to approve the proposed structure, as submitted for Case No. 026-04 at 466 No. Wall Street, based on the acceptance of staff's finding of fact by the Historic Landmark Commission, which included the memorandum and the drawings, that was submitted as an addendum at this meeting, with the following conditions: 1) that staff would review details of the rails, the retaining walls, and any other minor changes, and 2) if there are any inclinations that the applicant would desire to use synthetic stone, the product would have to be reviewed and approved by staff. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Legislative Action.
Ms. Giraud said that the City Council moved the briefing for the Legislative Action back and she will let the Commission know when it is again scheduled before the City Council
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. White seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 5:30P.M.