SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Scott Christensen, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, and Mark Wilson. Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Sarah Miller, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:20P.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 BUSINESS
Case No. 011-00 at 191-193 North Canyon Road, by Peggi Hathaway, requesting to remove the existing wood windows, install new vinyl windows, and legalize the basement vinyl windows installed without a permit on the triplex, located 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. He stated that although the buildings in the neighborhood are similar to those in the Avenues and Capitol Hill, the setting of the neighborhood at the gateway to Memory Grove and City Creek Canyon and the unusual, non-grid street pattern distinguish this neighborhood as a distinct part of both districts. Mr. Knight said that the subject building was built in 1941 and exhibits simple colonial revival details. He said that the surrounding buildings are an eclectic mix of houses dating from several historic periods from nineteenth century up through the 1980's.
Mr. Knight said that the applicant proposes to replace the existing wood windows with new Milgard "C" Series Classic vinyl single-hung thermopane units, a copy of the details were included in the staff report. He said that flat metal grids sandwiched between the two panes of glass are proposed in the same six-over-six configuration of the existing windows. Mr. Knight said that the applicant also proposes to legalize the basement vinyl windows installed some time ag6 without a permit.
Mr. Knight said that when the applicant attended the Architectural Subcommittee meeting, she was told that the proposed windows were not compatible with the triplex building and was encouraged to consider rehabilitating the existing windows, find a replacement window with a grid that was closer in design to the existing Muntins, or to consider the possibility of one-over-one sash.
Mr. Knight said that Section 21A.34.020(E)(6) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for ''Alterations to windows and doors, including replacement or changes in fenestration." He added that the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires a building permit for any window replacement on any structure in the city, not just structures in historic districts.
Mr. Knight stated that the Historic Landmark Commission should make findings and base a decision on the standards listed in Section 21A.34.020(G)(2)(5)(6) and (12), of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, "Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure." He pointed out that staff determined that the following standards were most applicable in this case:
2. The historic character of a properly shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a properly shall be avoided;
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic properly shall be preserved;
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects; and
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, a copy of the applicable guidelines of Section 3.0 for window replacements, were included in the staff report, such as:
3.3 Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a primary facade;
3.4 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening;
3.5 Match a replacement window to the original in its design;
3.6 Match the profile of the sash and its components, as closely as possible to that of the original window; and
3.7 In a replacement window, use materials that appear similar to the original.
Summary of staff’s discussion and finding: The Historic Landmark Commission encourages homeowners to repair existing historic windows. Vinyl windows have been allowed on buildings where they are not visible from the street, or in an area such as a basement window well, where a wood window would be subject to extreme deterioration. The proposed windows would not match the existing windows in the new material in composition, design, and other visual qualities. The detrimental effect of this change could be mitigated by the following measures:
1) Install the proposed windows only on the rear half of the building, out of view of Canyon Road. The existing windows could be rehabilitated or replace with more suitable units than the windows proposed. Suitable units would be a wood, aluminum-clad or vinyl-clad window with a profile that is closer to the existing window. True divided lights would not be necessary, although the replacements should have applied Muntins with a spacer bar to give the appearance of true divided lights;
2) Remove the metal grids from the replacement windows on the rear half of the building, so that the windows will be one-over-one sash. The change in window configuration will be acceptable since the windows will be the same size as the originals, will fit in the same openings, and will still appear to be double hung; or
3) Retain the existing window casing and remove only the existing sash, so that much of the existing profile of the windows will be retained.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff’s recommendation: "Staff recommend approval of the proposal with the recommended mitigation measures. Staff also recommends legalization of the basement windows that were installed without a permit."
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the wood panels below the windows on the front facade would be removed. Mr. Knight said that he believed those would be retained along with the other trim.
Mr. Wilson asked if it was possible to remove the metal grids on the replacement windows. Mr. Knight said that the applicant proposed that compromise.
Ms. Mitchell inquired what the difference was between a vinyl and a vinyl-clad window. Mr. Knight said that a vinyl window is solid vinyl. He said that a vinyl-clad window is a wood window that has a vinyl cladding on the outside and has a vinyl trim, which has a deeper profile than a vinyl window. Ms. Giraud said that the vinyl-clad is more expensive.
The applicant, Ms. Peggi Hathaway, was present. She circulated photographs of the windows in the house. She said that "she was ignorant and did not realize a permit was needed to install basement windows". She said that neither of the two different Milgard representatives informed her that a permit was needed.
Ms. Hathaway said that the staff report needed to be corrected regarding the Milgard windows because they would be double-hung and not single-hung. She said that with the double-hung windows, one can rotate them to either side to be cleaned.
Ms. Hathaway talked about the three options of the findings of fact included in the staff report. She said that the existing wood windows provide a more three-dimensional view that is an attractive feature. Ms. Hathaway said that the maintenance on the six-over six windows has been a real problem. She noted that seven years ago she scraped and reglazed the twelve squares of the twenty-three windows in the building, which was a "huge task" for a rental income property. Ms. Hathaway stated that she was more in favor of the third option and that was to retain the existing window casings and remove only the existing sashes. Ms. Hathaway also discussed how she planned to add little more features to the building to make it more aesthetically pleasing for the historic district by putting up shutters and awnings over the doorways, and building French doors.
Ms. Hathaway said that she chose the Milgard double-hung windows because they provide a deterrent to theft, low maintenance, and a noise reducer. She said that she would really like to have the windows and she said that she would be willing to remove the grids. Ms. Hathaway said that the building is very visible from all four sides and she said that she wanted the windows installed on all elevations, not just the sides and rear. Ms. Hathaway pointed out that she installed "Levelor Blinds" on every window to make each window consistent.
Ms. Hathaway discussed the suggestion of installing storm windows. She said that from what she had observed from people who have storm windows was that the windows have to be taken down and screens put up and that would be very difficult, especially on the second ·floor of the building, and the storm windows create a storage and a maintenance problem. She said, "you still haven't gotten yourself 'divorced' from a long-term care".
Ms. Hathaway said Mr. Knight was kind enough to present her with the list of addresses of the property owners who received notification of this meeting. She circulated a copy of a petition she developed from that list of names (the list would have included her immediate neighbors). She said that she received all but a few signatures on the list who supported her request to replace the windows in her building. She added that those few lived out of state and she could not contact them.
Ms. Hathaway stated that she also walked the neighborhood hunting for vinyl windows in Capitol Hill and Avenues Historic Districts. She circulated a list of addresses that she found had vinyl or aluminum windows with and without grids.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by inquiring what the patterns of the windows were before the vinyl or the vinyl-clad windows were installed. He asked if they had grids, true divided lights, or a change of pattern. Ms. Hathaway said that she did not know. Mr. Littig asked if her basement windows were installed for egress. Ms. Hathaway said that the basement had metal roll-out windows that were deteriorated. She said that the handles were broken and not replaceable so they could not be used. Mr. Littig inquired if the applicant had considered having the existing windows restored. Ms. Hathaway said that she had not considered that option because she wanted the new windows for low maintenance. Ms. Hathaway said she received a bid for wood windows and the cost would be $16,000 versus the $7,500 for the vinyl windows. Mr. Littig asked if that would have been a six-over-six, true divided light, windows. Ms. Hathaway said the wood window also had a "fake" grid between the two panes of glass. She pointed out that those windows would have the same profile as the ones she wanted to have installed.
• Mr. Christensen suggested that there were companies in the area that carefully removed the sashes, retrofitted them with weather stripping that increases the efficiency greatly. Ms. Hathaway said that she did look at that option but they would not be as efficient as thermopane windows. Mr. Christensen discussed another option of installing storm windows. Ms. Hathaway said that there would be the double cost; the cost of the storm windows and the cost of the screens to have good ventilation. She added that there has to be good and tight fit for the storm windows to make them work. Ms. Hathaway said that she had also seen condensation appear between the glass panes and no way of eliminating the moisture so the wood deteriorates even faster. Mr. Christensen said that his house was about 50 years older than the applicant's and he chose a very good storm window that he has found that is very successful. He said that he has not had any vapor problems and they are very easy to lift out from the inside and clean. He said that there was technology now that has greatly improved storm windows. Ms. Hathaway reiterated her desire to install the thermopane windows that she has purchased and eliminate the maintenance. Mr. Christensen said that it was "really difficult to consider dumping what I would call one of the most significant architectural features of this house. It's trying to be a federal colonial revival. It's really an incredibly handsome structure for the 1940's".
• Mr. Gordon asked if the structure had always been an apartment building. Ms. Hathaway said that the house was constructed in 1941 as a single-family home. She added that in 1943, the house was converted into apartments. She said that it must be well constructed and designed by a good architect because the rooms are square and the walls are plum. Mr. Gordon clarified that when grids were being discussed, in relationship to the subject windows, flat metal grids between two panes of glass were being referenced. Ms. Hathaway said that was how Milgard manufactures the windows with the metal grids between two panes of glass.
In closing, Ms. Hathaway said that she was investing $2,400.00 for the windows, and she had paid one-third of that cost. She said that she also had the option, according to Mr. Knight, to sue the contractor for not informing her that a building permit would be required. Ms. Hathaway again said that she was willing to compromise and be amenable to the third option of retaining the existing window casings and remove the existing sashes. She also said that the grids would be removed so the windows would be one-over-one double-hung windows.
Mr. Gordon opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Deanna Wankier, owner of several properties close to the applicant, said that she thought the grids were "beautiful". She said that the applicant's home was not a "classic old historical home". Ms. Wankier said that she lives in a "classic old historical home" and she has storm windows that she has to put on and take off every year. She talked about how "inconvenient" they were. Ms. Wankier said that she was in the process of getting bids on new wood ones. She said that she
thought the applicant was doing "wonderful" things by wanting to get windows that would make it a little easier for her. Ms. Wankier complimented the applicant of how well she takes care of the landscaping and the exterior of the building. Mr. Christensen again talked about storm windows that work. Ms. Wankier encouraged the Commission to support the applicant.
• Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that she drove by the applicant's home and was very impressed with how well the building was taken care of. She also complimented Mr. Christensen who does a lot of work on his home. Ms. Gardner said she was always "thrilled" when a landlord maintains investment property. She claimed she did not know much about vinyl windows but supposed the "experts" would resolve that issue, hopefully to the advantage of everyone. Ms. Gardner said that had guarded her old wood windows in her home because she said that wood generally worked better for her than plastic.
• Mr. Phil Erickson, who resides at 116 East Fourth Avenue, said that he shares a "cracked" retaining wall with the applicant. He said that he had observed two different landlords for the property that the applicant owns and he also complimented her for her "good work" of taking care of the property.
• Mr. Tom Cantrell, who resides at 127 East Fourth Avenue, said that he wanted to reflect what Mr. Erickson said. He said that he was a tenant/manager of a neighboring property and a long-term resident of the Avenues area. Mr. Cantrell said that he did not know that Ms. Hathaway's home was rental property. He said that he completely supported Ms. Hathaway and what she was attempting to do. Mr. Cantrell said that he understood the "cost effective" and the "investment enhancing" issues she was facing.
Upon hearing no further 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
A lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Littig said that he believed restoring the existing windows was the best choice and he said he thought that the option of allowing the applicant to install the one-over-one vinyl windows on the sides and rear was a "very generous offer". He said that the true divided light windows were a character-defining feature of the colonial revival style house. Mr. Littig said that he did not favor the flat metal grids sandwiched between the glass to be allowed.
The discussion turned to questions about the actual workings of the subject windows, and other brands of wood and vinyl windows.
It was decided that the meeting should be reopened to make some further inquiries of the applicant. Mr. Gordon asked if the window representative was in attendance because of some questions that person could answer. Ms. Hathaway said that he should have been present, but was not.
Mr. Gordon reclosed this portion of the meeting to further public comment.
The discussion continued regarding the workings and the pattern of the proposed new windows. Mr. Gordon commented that the brick mold would remain. Mr. Gordon also said that back in colonial times it was not unusual to have a different material on the front of a building, such as brick on the front and some other material on the sides and back. He said that "this was about as old as housing in this country gets". Ms. Giraud said that it was not a "big tradition here".
Ms. Giraud said that if staff generally could administratively approve window changes if the pattern stays the same. She added that there have been other approvals where vinyl windows were allowed on the sides and in the rear of a building. She said that staff has to review the details of the application. Ms. Giraud said that the reason why staff did not administratively approve Ms. Hathaway's application was she requested a change in the pattern of the windows. She pointed out that after the applicant's request was reviewed at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting and the members did not want the application administratively approved because of the existing Muntins in the wood windows, which are a character-defining feature of the building. She said that the members recommended that the request be reviewed by the full Commission.
The following is a summary of the continuing discussion: 1) There are a variety of other windows that may work for the applicant, such as wood, wood-clad with true divided lights, vinyl windows with wood casings, and so on; 2) The existing windows were believed to be in good condition so being repaired and restored was the most favored option because they were a character-defining feature of the building; 3) Investigating different types of storm windows as an option; 4) Low maintenance and accessibility is an issue with the applicant; 5) The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City discusses energy conservation. The Guidelines refer to repainting original sashes and using appropriate storm windows; 6) The new proposed windows, with the Muntins, would change the house very significantly. The building is a historic and a contributing structure; 7) The fake metal grids sandwiched between two panes of glass was not an option because they break and fall apart inside the windows; 8) The City's zoning ordinance is specific about the use of artificial materials. The standards are clearly printed by the City in which the Historic Landmark Commission has to operate; 9) Contact a window rebuilder and keep the casings and change some window pieces; 10) It was not a requirement of the Historic Landmark Commission to accept less than an ideal circumstance; and 11) Contributing historic structures should be preserved.
Ms. Giraud inquired if the Commission would be amenable to vinyl or aluminum storm windows as long as the existing casing remains. Mr. Christensen said, "He would be fine with that if it looked good from ten feet away and something you could remove later". He said that "pulling the screws out and filling in the screw holes" would not damage the wood.
When asked about the basement windows, Ms. Giraud said that the basement was not an issue because they generally are not visible. Ms. Giraud said that staff would have issued a Certificate of Appropriateness on the basement windows if the applicant would have requested one. Mr. Gordon suggested separate motions.
Motion regarding the legalization issue:
Mr. Simonsen moved for Case No. 011-00 that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the request to legalize the basement windows that have been installed without a permit. The Historic Landmark Commission finds that it is a practice in compliance with the City's ordinance. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.
A short discussion took place regarding the three options that were presented to the applicant, that were included in the staff report, as well as the wording of the motion.
Motion regarding the window replacement:
Ms. Mitchell moved for Case No. 011-00 to deny the application to replace the main floor and second floor windows with the Milgard "C" Series Classic vinyl windows based on the lack of Muntins that would provide a profile to the window that would make a significant change in the exterior appearance of the historic building in order to preserve the character-defining feature of the house and the character of the neighborhood. It was seconded by Mr. Simonsen. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Gordon, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Gordon asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Simonsen so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:00P.M.