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 Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Joel Paterson.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Alex Protasevich, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen, Sarah Miller, and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Wayne Gordon. Mr. Gordon announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Gordon asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
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.
NEW MEMBER
Mr. Gordon introduced Mr. Alex Protasevich as a new member of the Historic Landmark Commission. He was welcomed by the other members and staff.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the July 19, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Simonsen. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich and Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
The approval of the minutes of the August 16, 2000 and September 6, 2000 meetings were postponed.
BUSINESS
Case No. 025-00, at 459 North Main Street, by Leo Adams, requesting to construct an attached garage and addition to a single-family home in the Capitol Hill 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 stated that Mr. Adams requested an approval to build a two-story garage and family/bedroom addition of approximately 1,114 gross square feet (788 square feet on the main level and 326 in the basement). He said that the house was constructed in 1937 by Gordon L. and Beatrice P. Willis, and is a typical depression-era "Cape Cod" cottage. Mr. Knight stated that the property is zoned SR-1, Special pattern Residential District, which allows for single-family and two-family homes.
Mr. Knight stated that Mr. Adams originally presented this proposal to the Architectural Subcommittee in June 1999. He said that the applicant currently owns the house, but does not reside there. He added that the applicant would like to move into the house, but must renovate the house to accommodate the needs of Mrs. Adams, who is disabled. Mr. Knight said that Mr. Adams proposed an attached, one-car garage, with extra width to accommodate wheelchair loading and unloading. He said that the applicant also proposed an accessible family room and attached bathroom behind the garage. Mr. Knight indicated that Mr. Adams had worked with the architects at ASSIST, the community design center, to plan the necessary changes to the interior to accommodate the needs of Mrs. Adams.
Mr. Knight reported that the members of the Architectural Subcommittee believed that in this case an attached garage was acceptable because of the owners' special needs, but encouraged Mr. Adams to lessen the impact of the garage by modifying the proposed roofline to create a visual break between the existing and new portions of the house. He indicated that the Architectural Subcommittee also encouraged Mr. Adams to reduce the amount of driveway concrete by using turf block in the center section of the driveway.
Mr. Knight stated that staff had issued an approval of the project on August 2, 1999, but Mr. Adams was unable to begin work on the project within the subsequent one-year time limit, so that approval expired on August 2, 2000. In the meantime, Mr. Knight added that the applicant had been working with the City Zoning and Transportation staff to obtain their approvals for the project. He mentioned that because of the steep slope of both the property and the adjacent street, the Transportation Division would not allow the straight driveway that Mr. Adams proposed. Mr. Knight said that Mr. Adams changed the access of the driveway to the north end of the property, and enlarged the driveway to allow for a turnaround in the front yard. He noted that Mr. Adams proposes to retain the existing parking pad on the north side of the house.
Mr. Knight stated that Mr. Adams presented these changes to staff in August. He said that given the dramatic change to the driveway, and given that Commission policy had recently changed to require full Commission review of projects such as these, staff referred the application to the full Commission.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G), H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, which were included in the staff report:
G. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of a Appropriateness for alteration of landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:
Staff determined that the following standards are most applicable to this case:
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;
12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council
Mr. Knight referred to The Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City and stated that they are also applicable in this case. Applicable standards in this case include:
8.3 Place an addition at the rear of the 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 the structure is inappropriate.
8.10 Use windows in the addition that are similar in character to 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.
3.4 Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure. Traditionally, garages were cited 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: This proposal is more complex than most because of the property's location on a steep hill. The property steeply slopes both to the west and to the north. Staff explored a number of alternate sites for a garage on this property, including the location of the existing garage and behind the existing house. The grades on the property make building at both these locations difficult. Mr. Adams is also unsatisfied with these solutions because neither location would provide for a garage on the main floor of the house. The Adams would have to install an elevator or other means of passage from the main floor to the garage in the basement. There is not enough space for an attached garage on the north end of the house, which would allow a shorter driveway. Staff also requested Mr. Adams to set back the front of the garage from the front wall of the existing house. Mr. Adams finds this solution unsatisfactory, as well, because the floor of the garage would have to be reinforced to provide for parking. He would also lose the family room and accessible bathroom at the rear of the addition.
The Commission has reviewed similar curving driveways and front-facing garages on this block of Main Street. Historic Landmark Commission has allowed attached garages and long driveways on new construction at 439-441 North main Street, 451 North Main Street, and 458 North Main Street. Detached garages in the front yard are a common solution to the steep topography of Capitol Hill and there are many historic and recent examples in the district.
In this case, staff feels that the amount of concrete proposed is excessive. The size of the driveway should be the minimum required for access to the garage. In addition, Mr. Adams should remove and landscape the existing parking on the north side of the house.
Staffs findings of fact: 1) Given the constraints of the topography of this lot, and the needs of the applicant, an attached garage is acceptable in this case. Future requests of this type should be reviewed by the full Commission on a case-by-case basis.; and 2) The proposed concrete driveway, combined with the existing parking pad, is excessively large. The size of the driveway should be reduced to the minimum required by Salt Lake City ordinance and building code, and the existing north parking pad should be removed and the area landscaped.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of this application with the following conditions: 1) The size of the driveway should be reduced to the minimum required by Salt Lake City ordinance and building code; 2) The existing north parking pad should be removed and the area landscaped; 3) The sliding windows on the addition, as shown on the submitted plans, should be changed to double or single-hung, clad-wood windows in a size and configuration that is compatible with the historic windows on the building. Flat metal grids between the two panes of glass should not be used on the new windows to approximate the Muntins of the existing windows; 4) The proposed garage door should be wood; and 5) The light fixtures flanking the garage door should be a more historically compatible design than those shown on the submitted drawings."
Mr. Simonsen mentioned that in some cases, the addition would be differentiated from the main structure by the use of a different kind of exterior material. Mr. Knight said that was discussed in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting, and the members said that they preferred that it was matching material. Mr. Knight said that there have been cases where it had been done either way. Mr. Gordon said that in some styles, the differentiation could detract from the detailing on the structure.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the plans and about the dimensions of the proposal. Mr. Knight said that after the applicant submitted his plans, he brought in a revised set of plans. Mr. Parvaz asked if the proposed garage was one or two stories. Mr. Knight said that the plans called for a one-story garage. Mr. Knight said that that the applicant did not want the half story that the plans show. He also said that there would not be a room over the garage.
There was some further discussion regarding the lack of details and errors in the site plan.
Mr. and Mrs. Leo Adams, the applicants were present. Mr. Adams said that the house they are living in does not accommodate his wife. He talked about the time period of the establishment of the model cities and when he served on the coordinating council. Mr. Adams said that the housing task force, had three purposes: 1) Historic living district, which function was to preserve historical structures in a way that would be conducive to people living in it; 2) Provide funding for emergency home repair. Money that would be made available to all people within the model cities area to improve their homes; and 3) ASSIST.
Mr. Adams circulated copies of photos of the subject property, as well as the neighboring properties, copies were filed with the minutes. Mr. Adams described each photograph as they were being circulated. He pointed out the honey suckle hedge that is over 6 feet tall and would obscure any vision of the house. He talked about the angle that the proposed driveway would take and how it would circle around to enter the garage from the south. Mr. Adams said that it was necessary to alter the driveway and parking pad to park the three vehicles that his family ordinarily drives. Mr. Adams stated that when he met with Mr. Barry Walsh of the Traffic Division, Mr. Walsh said that it would be too dangerous to back out into traffic on that steep hill and said that Mr. Adams' plans seemed to be the best use with the circumstances with which he was confronted. Mr. Adams pointed out another photograph as an example of what they did not want. The photograph had cars stacked in front of the structure. Mr. Adams said that he likes to keep the cars out of site in the garage.
Mr. Adams reiterated the fact that his wife needed a driveway the width of what has been proposed extending to the front door for access. He pointed to some of the photographs where the driveways were extended to the door.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by inquiring who the owners were of the driveways to the north. Mr. Adams pointed out that he owned the driveway and said that the neighbor owned the driveway just north of that. She asked Mr. Adams to explain again how the proposed driveway would access the new garage. Mr. Adams said that he would be glad to arrive at some kind of arrangement that would not require as much cement but that it had to be in excess of the minimum requirement. He said, "We are dealing with a handicapped person who has to get in and out." Mr. Adams said that he would work out the grade change and the width of the proposed driveway with the traffic people. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the proposed plans were very confusing and it did not show the accessory building in back of the house. Mr. Adams said that was an old garage and he wanted to keep it for storage.
• Mr. Littig said that he understood the needs of Mr. and Mrs. Adams, but he did not believe the plans reflected how the project had been described. Mr. Littig talked about the tremendous grade change on the lot from the curb to the parking. Mr. Adams said that was the reason why the circular driveway was needed. Mr. Littig made some suggestions how the applicant could drive straight into the garage from the driveway section. Mr. Adams further described the proposed project and more suggestions were made. Mr. Adams talked about the need for more living space indicating why the addition would be extended in the rear. Mr. Littig recommended that the plans be revised and corrected.
The discussion continued as the site plans were reviewed. Several members offered suggestions and recommendations on how the plans could be changed to accommodate wheelchair access. Mr. Knight said that he would check with Mr. Barry Walsh regarding the regulations on the width of the driveway and other matters. Zoning issues were discussed. There was a suggestion of turf block in the center section to break up the massing of the hard surface.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Gordon closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session
Mr. Wilson said that the drawings were confusing and he had difficulty understanding them. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said she believed with a little change in the design, there was a way to accommodate Mr. and Mrs. Adams' request. There was some discussion regarding the wording of a motion. Motion: Mr. Young moved to table Case No. 025.00 and referred the applicant to the Architectural Subcommittee for the refinement of details as expressed in the staff's findings of fact, which includes the siting, looking at the parking and the driveway widths on the east side of the building. It was seconded by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich.
After a short discussion the motion was amended.
Amended motion:
Mr. Young moved to table Case No. 025-00 and referred the applicant to the Architectural Subcommittee for refinement of details as expressed in the staff's findings of fact, which includes the siting, looking at the parking and driveway widths on the east side of the building. Further that the site plans have some detail between the garage addition and the front of the house, and the drawings show some indication of separation between the two. Also, that the existing shed be included on the site plans, as an existing feature. The proposal is to return to the full Commission for approval. The second still stood by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Gordon, as chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of National register of Historic Places nominations for areas bounded by 700 East to 1100 East Streets, South Temple to 400 to 500 South Streets, 700 East Street to Mt. Olivet Cemetery, and from 500 South to 900 South Streets.
Ms. Giraud gave a brief overview by saying that staff was currently working on a nomination for the area bounded by 700 East, 1100 East, South Temple and 400/500 South, and the City is almost ready to solicit consultant proposals to prepare a nomination for the neighborhood bounded by 700 East, the Mt. Olivet Cemetery,
400/500 South and 900 South Streets. She said that she referred to the first neighborhood as "Bryant" and the second neighborhood as "Bennion/Douglas", after the schools in the area.
Ms. Giraud introduced Mr. Roger Roper and Mr. Cory Jensen of the Utah State Preservation Office (SHPO). She said that Mr. Roper serves as the Preservation Coordinator. Ms. Giraud said that they are attending the meeting to present some additional information about the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Giraud stated that staff has been getting more and more requests for National Register nominations. Ms. Giraud pointed out that if the Conservation and Reinvestment Act goes through, more funding would be available for surveys and nominations.
Ms. Giraud said that Central City was listed as a National Register of Historic Places nomination in about 1994 or 1995 and the University was listed at about the same time. She said that there are substantial tax credits that can be obtained by investing in a building on the National Register and that is why people want those benefits.
Ms. Giraud said that when Central City was listed on the National Register, staff looked carefully at the way it had been originally platted. She reported that Central City went from the Jordan River along 900 South to about 950 East, and then up along Fourth Avenue, onto what is now called Wall Street. She said the idea was to list a lot of buildings on the register as being included in the original part of Salt Lake City. Ms. Giraud mentioned that the boundaries of the Central City National Register District were not the same as the boundaries for the Central City Historic District.
Ms. Giraud stated that when the idea of a nomination for the Bryant and Bennion/Douglas neighborhoods originated, there was much discussion about how to list these areas on the National Register.
Ms. Giraud said that she attended the East Central Community Council to make a presentation to the members regarding amending the Central City National Register District to include Bryant and Bennion/Douglas Districts. She said that staff is not completely "married" to the proposal but it appears to be the easiest way to write the nomination and to justify the idea to the National Park Service. Ms. Giraud said that the community council "seconded" the proposal. She indicated that the name could be changed from Central City to something else, like "Old Salt Lake City District", after the district is merged. Ms. Mickelsen suggested "East Downtown District". Ms. Giraud said that it was important that everyone is unified on the idea.
Mr. Young inquired if changing the name and merging these other areas, would affect the federal funding for light rail (Trax). Ms. Giraud said that she did not believe it would have any effect on the federal funding. She added that the federal agencies should be happy with these national register districts because it eliminates one step in the process.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the boundaries of the Bryant and Bennion/Douglas areas if they merge with the Central City District, the 400 South corridor remaining under local control, and other related matters.
Mr. Roper said that it would be more difficult to extend the University Historic District boundaries because of the strong ties of the district to the university faculty.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) money. Ms. Giraud said that the funds were available to hire a consultant to write the nomination. Ms. Giraud said that people from Bennion/Douglas neighborhood were going to apply for CDBG money, themselves, to hire a consultant, so the timing to accomplish the merger is right.
Mr. Roper displayed an original plat of Salt Lake City showing the large ten-acre blocks and how the city was laid out. He pointed out the original boundaries of the city. Ms. Giraud talked about the influence of some of the early pioneers in building up certain neighborhoods, such as Thomas Child who developed the "Gilgal Gardens".
Mr. Roper said that SHPO manages the National Register of Historic Places program. He pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission was the group who represented the City on preservation issues. He indicated that is reaffirmed through the CLG (Certified Local Government) program. Mr. Roper said that SHPO relies on the Historic Landmark Commission to make recommendations for nominations for the National Register of Historic Places. He added that SHPO is also an advisory group in writing nominations.
Mr. Roper continued to discuss the role of SHPO and the historical facts and data that are compiled in the archives. He also talked about the advantages of the tax credits for property owners in National Register districts. Mr. Roper said that legislation was still pending in the Utah State Legislature to allow tax credits for commercial buildings. Ms. Giraud said that it was easier to make a case for listing a commercial building individually.
Ms. Mickelsen said that she was concerned about all these tax credits being made available on properties that are not under local control. Mr. Roper said that sometimes SHPO's requirements are stricter than the local control.
Mr. Gordon opened the discussion to the public for public comment and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested person, stated that she has four old buildings in the Bryant area and is anxious for this nomination to be approved so she can take advantage of the tax credits. She talked about the 400/500 South light rail corridor and that the Environmental Impact Statement claimed there were no national register sites on the proposed alignment, which was an error and no one caught it. She stated, "I am expecting a battle royal over the Central Community Master Plan regarding this 'so called' transit-oriented development. I am sick and tired of hearing about it because it just guts our historic districts. There is no provision for how they will preserve our historic fabric, and yet we are going to have these 'bull’s eyes' radiating out from every station impacting those historic properties."
Ms. Cromer urged the nomination of the Bryant and Bennion/Douglas districts to be written and forwarded to the National Park Service as soon as possible. She said that it was not only important to her but to her neighbors and the rest of the property owners in the area. Ms. Cromer added that she did not want to curtail the nomination because of a name or name change, although she was not comfortable with using the same label as what is now called "Central City". She said that people in the Bryant and Bennion/Douglas areas do not identify themselves with "Central City". Ms. Cromer noted that she believed the Historic Landmark Commission could come up with a name that would be comfortable to most everyone. Ms. Cromer said that she was not aware that the "University Historic District" was based on where the faculty lived. She said that the university is more important that just a faculty list. Ms. Cromer talked about her disappointment when the western boundary of the University Historic District stopped on the east side of 1100 East, where her home is located. Ms. Cromer talked about the future role of the Historic Landmark Commission in respect to master planning for historic preservation.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Gordon closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Parvaz said that the potential nomination would have been easier to discern if a staff report or some kind of written documentation would have been provided for the Commissioners. Ms. Giraud apologized that a staff report was not written and said that she would have one for the next meeting.
Mr. Roper also said that when the nomination reaches its final stages, formal written documentation will be given to the Historic Landmark Commission.
The discussion continued regarding the nomination and the name change.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved to pass a resolution stating that given the discussion at this meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission is comfortable with proceeding with the nominations and believes that it is appropriate for staff to consider including the Bryant nomination with what is now known as the Central City Historic District for the National Register of Historic Places. He also made the same conclusion for the Bennion-Douglas nomination, unless some impending evidence comes to light that is found by the consultant hired to complete the nomination. The staff and the Historic Landmark Commission can look at changing the name of the existing Central City National Register district that is representative of the entire area encompassed by Central City, Bryant, and Bennion/Douglas. It was seconded by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich. Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:10P.M.