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 Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Orlan Owen, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Orlan Owen, and Robert Young. Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, and Oktai Parvaz were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:05 P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Blaes asked members of the audience to tum 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the July 15, 1998 meeting, after a small correction is made. It was seconded by Mr. Littig. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Parvaz were not present. The motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Case No. 017-98. at 650-654 E. Ely Place. by Shawn Lockwood, represented by Pam Wells, Architect. requesting to legalize and approve an addition.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. There was a short discussion regarding the protocol and procedure of this case. It was decided that the Staff's finding of facts in the staff report from the July 15, 1998 Historic Landmark Commission meeting could be adapted for use in this meeting.
The applicant, Mr. Shawn Lockwood, and his representative, Ms. Pam Wells, were present. Ms. Wells said that that applicant had samples of the colors for the stucco he had chosen to be used on the exterior walls of the structure.
Mr. Lockwood displayed a sample board of stucco colors. He said that the colors he chose were "spruce green" for the walls and "meadow brook cream" for the trim. He said that they were very soft colors. He also circulated a sample of the roofing material. Mr. Lockwood said that the stucco that will be applied would be the traditional stucco and not an insulating synthetic stucco.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by inquiring further about the wall section. He asked about the connection between the wall and the roof eaves. Ms. Wells said that the drawings were unclear and clarified how the roof eaves would be constructed.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Blaes said she wanted to make it clear in the record, that the conceptional approval the Historic Landmark Commission gave at the July 15, 1998 meeting, had to do with the massing and scale, only, and the applicant was requested to provide further information to the Architectural Subcommittee.
Ms. Blaes read the following statement, which was listed in the staff report of July 15, 1998, "Because 650-654 E. Ely Place is rated as a "non-contributing" structure in the Central City architectural survey, Staff is relying on Section 21A.34.020 (H), of the Salt Lake City Code, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Non-Contributing Structure. The Historic Landmark Commission Commission is required to consider whether the proposed alteration substantially complies with 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 is in the best interest of the City."
The following sections of the Salt Lake City Code were discussed, as was reported in the staff report for the July 15, 1998 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Ms. Blaes asked the members of the Commission for a consensus on the Staff's findings:
The following sections of the Salt Lake City Code were discussed, as was reported in the staff report for the July 15, 1998 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Ms. Blaes asked the members of the Commission for a consensus on the Staff's findings:
Ordinance. Section 21A.34.020 (H) (1) (a through d): 1. Scale and form; (a) Height and width; (b) Proportion of principal facades; (c) Roof shape; and (d) Scale of a structure:
Staffs finding: The proposed alteration is visually compatible with the surrounding structures in scale and form. Lowering the height of the second story addition and decreasing its size, has reduced the mass and scale of the upper story. It is not as visually imposing on the original structure as the proposed addition last brought before the Commission and is in keeping with the character of the historic building. The rooftop addition is set back from the front of the building.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staff's findings.
Section 21A.34.020 (H) (2) (a through d): Composition of principal facades; (a) Proportion of openings; (b) Rhythm of solids and voids in facades; (c) Rhythm of entrance porch and other projections; and (d) Relationship of materials:
Staffs finding: The existing proportion of openings and the rhythm of solids and voids in the facades of the second story are not visually compatible with the surrounding structures. The alterations in the windows and the relationship of the openings to the wall proposed by Ms. Wells meet the requirements of the ordinance. The proposed inset windows are a justifiable compromise to the problem of conforming to the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The use of stucco, with properly detailed window openings, would be visually compatible with the other structures on the street.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staff's findings, with the exception that since the revised drawings were reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee and submitted at this meeting, the existing proportion of openings and the rhythm of solids and voids in the facades of the second story are now compatible with the surrounding structures.
Section 21A.34.020 (H) (3} (a through d): 3. Relationship to street; (a) Walls of continuity; (b) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets; (c) Directional expression of principal elevation; and (d) Streetscape-pedestrian improvements:
Staffs finding: The proposed revisions, submitted by Ms. Wells, involve a change in roof shape, window openings and materials that are more compatible with the style of the structure and the adjacent properties. This will ensure continuity along Ely Place, which is visible not only to passers-by on this street, but by anyone using the parking lot south of Trolley Square. The rhythm of the spacing of this house and adjacent properties and the orientation of the house, are not issues in this case.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs findings.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 017-98, based on the findings of fact, which were included in a previous staff report presented at the July 15,1998 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, and based on the new details and stucco color that was provided. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Parvaz were not present. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 020-98. at 683 No. West Capitol Street. by Kenton Peters and Sara McCormick. requesting to construct a single-family house.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Knight said that the standard procedure for an application for new construction is to have the proposal reviewed by the full Historic Landmark Commission before going to its Architectural Subcommittee. He said that in this application, Mr. Peters has had experience with the Commission and knows how the process works. Mr. Knight also said that Staff had a member of the Commission request that it be reviewed in Subcommittee before the concept was brought before the full Commission.
Ms. Blaes commented on the break in the procedures and protocol. She said that the Commission set a policy that a request for new construction would come before the full Commission before it would go to the Subcommittee. Ms. Blaes said that she believed that policy should be adhered to, unless the Historic Landmark Commission, as a whole, wanted to change that policy.
The applicants, Mr. Kenton Peters and Ms. Sara McCormick, were present. Mr. Peters said that there were some very serious site constraints, due to the steepness of the property. Mr. Peters referred to the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, and said that an important aspect for new construction was that a building be representational of its time. He said that he believed that the design for the proposed structure responded to that requirement.
Mr. Peters talked about the curvilinear roof form, and said that Staff had done a good analysis, but left out the fact that a standing metal seam roof may be more compatible with the design of the house. He also said that there were other examples in the historic district where curvilinear room forms were used. Mr. Peters said that one of the most obvious, is the State Capitol Building. He referred to several existing buildings in the district, as other examples. Mr. Peters also noted that standing metal seam roofs were durable and required low maintenance.
Mr. Peters concluded by addressing the proposed color scheme of the building. He said that Victorian-era houses in the district often are highly detailed with contrasting bright colors on various design elements. Mr. Peters said that he considered the proposed color scheme to be a contemporary interpretation of the Victorian use of colors. He spoke of other buildings in the area that were examples where the application of brightly contrasting colors were effective.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Ms. Deal led the discussion and inquired if the applicants had a color board for the color section of the stucco. Mr. Peters said that they did not, but one would be prepared. Ms. Deal asked if the colors had been selected. Mr. Peters said that the walls of the house would be a white stucco. The projecting decks and roof canopy would be contrasting colors, although exact colors had not been selected.
• Mr. Owen asked about the color selection for the roof. Mr. Peters said that for energy reasons, he would like it to be a light color, such as blue, gray, or some other reflecting color. He added that it would not be silver color.
• Mr. Young inquired about the arc of the roof and the dotted line drawn over the courtyard on the south elevation. Mr. Peters said that was his reference line to find the radius of the roof line. He also said that he was considering a roof overhang on that side for shade purposes. Mr. Peters added that the details had not been addressed. To help alleviate the hot western sun, he proposed installing a series of removable shutters on the west and south elevations of the building.
• Ms. Blaes asked when the applicant's request for a variance was scheduled to be reviewed before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Knight indicated that it had not been scheduled; that the applicants wanted a design review by the Historic Landmark Commission before asking for a variance. Mr. Wright said that it was not likely that the review would take place before September 21, 1998, and suggested continuing with the design review.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A discussion took place regarding the scale and massing of the project, and that the contemporary style of the proposed house would be considered a product of its time.
Ms. Blaes stated that the Commission members needed to review the Staffs findings of fact and render a consensus of support or nonsupport. Ms. Blaes read the following sections of the Salt Lake City Code and the Staffs ·findings: "In Section 21A.34.020 (H), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness involving New Construction, it states the following: In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, the Historic Landmark Commission shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to this application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape and is in the best interest of the City."
Section 21A.34.020 (H) (1) (a through d): 1. Scale and form; (a) Height and width; (b) Proportion of principal facades; (c) Roof shape; and (d) Scale of a structure.
Staffs finding: The proposed building is compatible in height, width, and scale with other buildings on the street and in the district. The proportion of a principal facades is compatible with the surrounding buildings. the proposed roof shape is not a traditional roof form used in the district.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: This proposed roof shape is not a traditional form, but it could be tied in with a product of its time and appropriate for the design of the house. The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs findings.
Section 21A.34.020 (H) (2) (a through d): (2) Composition of principal facades; (a) Proportion of openings; (b) Rhythm of solids to voids in facades; (c) Rhythm of entrance porch and other projections; and (d) Relationship of materials.
Staffs finding: The proportion of openings and the rhythm of the entrance porch and balconies on the proposed design are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding buildings. the rhythm of solids to voids is unusual, especially on the front facade, but is not consistent with the traditional uses of stucco in the district. The use of standing seam metal as a roofing material is not ordinarily acceptable, but may be the best choice for this type of roof form.
Mr. Knight said that in the past, the Historic Landmark Commission had approved standing seam metal, as a roofing material, for new construction in the Capitol Hill Historic district and added that statement to the Staffs finding, regarding the relationship of materials.
Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding: The exterior color of the proposed house was discussed. Ms. Blaes said that the she did not believe the Commission could make a solid finding on the relationship of the materials of the principal facades until the color of the stucco had been selected by the applicants. She suggested that when the final motion was formulated, direction should be given to the applicants to provide that information. Ms. Blaes also said that she thought it was important to make sure that the findings indicated that there was a precedent for a standing seam metal roof in the district for new construction. The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs findings.
Section 21A.34.020 (H) (3) (a through d): (3) Relationship to street; (a) Walls of continuity; (b) Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets; (c) Directional expression of principal elevation; and (d) Streetscape-pedestrian improvements.
Staffs finding: Because of the current architectural variety found in this block, Staff finds it difficult to review the design within a streetscape context since the setbacks and the siting of the surrounding buildings differ from each other. Staff views the fact that the garage is proposed for the rear of the lot as a positive feature of this proposal. The directional expression of the principal elevation is consistent with the district. Staff is not aware of streetscape and pedestrian improvements that need to be made.
Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and finding: A discussion took place of how a contemporary-style house would relate to the older homes in the neighborhood and the precedent that design would have in the area. Mr. Owen expressed his concern that the proposed structure would look like a Quonset hut that has a corrugated metal roof. Ms. Deal said that she believed that when the final proposal was presented, the proposed structure would not come across so much like a Quonset hut. She pointed out that the proposed structure would have a standing seam metal roof with 16 to18 inches between each seam, so it would not have the same appearance as a corrugated metal roof of a Quonset hut. Ms. Deal also pointed out that some of the contrasting details would be modified on the actual structure.
Ms. Blaes said that it would be helpful to see. the siting of this property in relation to the proposed new structures which will be constructed on the same block. She said that once the existing buildings were shown, in relation to the recent building, the Commission would have a better idea what the streetscape would look like. The other newly approved construction projects on the block were discussed. Ms. Blaes added that those new projects were important because they would be developing the streetscape.
Ms. Giraud commented that the applicant did a good job of imposing the proposed structure on photographs showing the site from the south on the computer-generated drawings. She said that the house would be very visible from Wall Street, which is the first street downhill from the project. Ms. Giraud suggested that a rendering depicting that view be provided. Ms. Blaes said that the Commission needed to see some representation of how the proposed structure would be visible from all elevations because of the grade of the land.
Based on the information provided, the Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs findings, as long as the needed details are provided and that the applicants receive their requested variance from the Board of Adjustment.
Section 21A.34.020 (H) (4): (4) Subdivision of lots.
Staffs finding: this standard is not applicable to this application. The applicant intends to keep this lot as one parcel.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staff's findings.
The Commission, making a request to the Board of Adjustment to approve the variance, was discussed. Ms. Giraud said that Staff could write a letter to the Board of Adjustment, pointing out what this Commission had done. She said that a conditional approval would send a message to the Board of Adjustment that the Commission would like to see the project move forward. Mr. Wright said that the Commission could help the Board of Adjustment by making findings on the general character of the neighborhood and that the interest of the City would be maintained. He said that the Board of Adjustment would focus on the actual hardship, due to the slope, size, and shape of the lot. Mr. Wright said that by the Historic Landmark Commission giving a conditional approval, it would give the members of the Board of Adjustment some comfort that the Commission believed that "this kind of building in this neighborhood" would make a positive statement, rather than a negative one. Ms. Blaes said that she believed it would be helpful if the Board of Adjustment knew how many uncompleted projects have been reviewed for this lot in the past few years. She added that she believed the neighbors would also like to have homes built on the vacant property. The Board of Adjust review was further discussed.
Ms. Deal said that sometimes meeting the setback requirements, as regulated in the zoning ordinance, creates a hardship on some properties in the Historic Overlay Districts. Ms. Blaes encouraged the Staff to write a letter to the Board of Adjustment and include these issues.
Mr. Young moved for conditional approval for Case No.020-98 and to forward the case to the Architectural Subcommittee for further details on the cornice, the eave roof line, and the coloration of the stucco, also provided that the applicants are granted a variance, as they have requested. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Parvaz were not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 021-98. at 420 South 800 East. by the LOS Church. represented by David Fletcher, of Thomas Petersen Hammond and Associates Architects. requesting to remodel the Tenth Ward Meetinghouse building by demolishing an existing. non contributing, addition and constructing a new addition. also renovating portions of the building.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Knight reported that the proposed steeple atop the entrance tower of the chapel was originally built on the chapel, but was destroyed in a fire in 1927 and never rebuilt. He said that the applicants propose to restore the steeple.
Mr. Knight continued by saying that one issue that has been raised prominently is the issue of the landscaping, especially on the west side. He said that the existing garden was the work of Thomas Child who was Bishop of the ward for 19 years, ending in about 1945. Mr. Knight said that he was a very prominent stone mason, who also built Gilgal Garden, which is the garden immediately southwest of the ward building. Some of the stonework was proposed to be relocated. There was a short discussion regarding the staff report.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the applicant, was represented by Mr. David Fletcher from Thomas Petersen Hammond and Associates, who was present. Mr. Fletcher introduced Mr. Ron Godwin, also from Thomas Petersen Hammond and Associates. Mr. Fletcher said that Mr. Gary Larson, from the Physical Facilities Department of the LDS Church, was also in attendance. Mr. Fletcher stated that he did not have many exceptions to the staff report. He said he believed it to be a favorable report.
Mr. Fletcher described the project in the following manner:
The Tenth Ward building is the only LDS ward building in Salt Lake City that is still in use by the Church that dates from Brigham Young's lifetime. A number of interesting elements have been discovered about the building that have not been reported by any of the historic surveys. Originally the north building was a single story building, and sometime in the late 1890's its use was converted and a second floor was added. The dormers and the windows, on that second floor, are not original to the building. Since they are very significant, they will be retained in their existing use.
There are some windows that have been covered and bricked-in over the years. There are other buildings that were on the site that have since been demolished. The South building, the present chapel, is substantially being retained without any architectural modifications, with the exception of restoring the steeple over the entrance tower. There is both photographic and drawing evidence of the design that is available. The issue of durability is pertinent, so the steeple is proposed to be rebuilt in a copper material, rather than the original wood shingles. It is believed that the copper material would be consistent with the time period and would fit the overall intent.
There are major settlement issues that are taking place with the building. Some of what we are doing is intended to mitigate some of those structural problems. The building, presently, houses a rather aging population. Issues of accessibility are important in the building. The rear of the building has been a significant entrance in the past, and the addition will also address the accessibility issues into the building."
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
Ms. Blaes led the discussion by asking about the necessity of window replacements in the schoolhouse and the meetinghouse. Mr. Fletcher said that the windows in the schoolhouse building were not original. He said that those windows were installed, as replacement windows, during some remodeling work in the 1960's. Mr. Fletcher said that those windows are a true divided light. He added that the windows, which are proposed to be installed, are what Pella markets as their historic replacement windows. Mr. Fletcher said that the applicant was also concerned about energy consumption in the building. Mr. Littig commented that Pella system windows have aluminum on the outside and wood on the inside. Mr. Fletcher reported that the windows in the schoolhouse were original, but a number of the pieces have deteriorated. He said that the operating mechanisms are no longer functional and some have been painted shut. Mr. Fletcher said that he believed that the profiles would be matched. He noted that the muntin pattern in the windows, in the original meetinghouse building, have been changed significantly because the placement of the original Muntins could be seen. He said that the tall, vertical, windows were remodeled and shortened when the second floor was added. Ms. Deal inquired if the new replacement windows would have true divided lights. Mr. Fletcher said that they would not because Pella did not make a window which had true divided lights with insulating glass. Ms. Deal said that other companies do. Mr. Fletcher said that none of the windows in the 1909 chapel are being replaced; just the ones in the schoolhouse are being replaced. He said that very little of the glass was original in that building.
Ms. Blaes said that the fountain is proposed to be removed, but it appears that nothing would be going in its place, according to the demolition plan. Mr. Fletcher said that the fountain has been in disrepair for a long time and had become a maintenance problem. Mr. Fletcher also said that the roots of a large Chinese Elm tree were destroying the wall on the west side of the property. He said that the wall is not reinforced, but the plans show that the condition of the wall will be stabilized.
• Ms. Deal pointed out that a chimney would be removed and inquired if it was proposed to be rebuilt. Mr. Fletcher said that a chimney is planned to be rebuilt to maintain its presence on the building, but not using the original materials. He said that the chimney would not be functional and would be a stucco replica of the original. Ms. Deal added that the chimney was originally built out of masonry. Mr. Fletcher agreed and said that, even though the Church plans to spend about $3 Million on the project, there were some cost concerns. He said that it was unfortunate but the chimney material would have to be sacrificed. Ms. Deal said she believed that a Dryvit system chimney would have a "Styrofoam" look and would not be acceptable. Mr. Fletcher said that a frame would be constructed to shape the chimney and covered with a non-puncturable cement board. Ms. Deal recommended that Mr. Fletcher provide a detailed section of the chimney structure so the Commission members would have a better idea of how the product would look.
Ms. Deal inquired about the triangular sections on the west elevation of the chapel. Mr. Fletcher said that there had been several kinds of materials on those sections, but a synthetic stucco with an acrylic base would be used. He said that the appearance would be the same as the traditional stucco. Ms. Blaes said that she hoped there would be no visible seams in the finished synthetic stucco work on the entire facade on the west elevation.
Ms. Deal said that drawings call for the repair and replacement of brick where steel columns and grout pockets have been removed on the south elevation of the meeting house. Mr. Fletcher said those pillow blocks that are holding the bolts for the existing steel columns will have to be removed and replacement brick from other portions of the building would be used to patch the holes in the wall.
Ms. Deal inquired about the repair or replacing the wood trim on the buildings. Mr. Fletcher said that sections would either be repaired or, if necessary, be replaced with wood. Ms. Deal expressed her concerns about the supervision of the project to make certain that in-kind material would be used.
Ms. Deal pointed out that a rubble stone veneer wainscot with pre-cast concrete cap would be used on the exterior of the proposed new addition and inquired if the stone material would be real stone. Mr. Fletcher said that it would be.
• Mr. Littig inquired about the proposed stripping of the exterior brick work because he said that the bricks looked very soft. Mr. Fletcher said that the bricks were low temperature fired bricks and not made out of adobe. He said that the paint on the brick was destroying the brick because the surface is a non-breathable. He said that the moisture migrates from the higher humidity inside the building, in the freeze thaw cycles, and the condensation behind the brick takes a little more material off with it each year. Mr. Fletcher said that the brick that is removed will be salvaged and used to replace the badly deteriorated ones. Mr. Littig noted that the north exterior wall of the meetinghouse had some severe cracking. Mr. Fletcher said that the cracking was caused by compressed soil and will be stabilized during the renovation. He added that the inside floors were in terrible condition as the result of the soil condition. Mr. Fletcher said that the settlement was less than it appeared. He said that the building lines were still fairly true to their original lines. Mr. Fletcher said that the cracking would be repaired, but the building would not be jacked-up for fear of further damage. Mr. Young asked if there were any elements in the vestry of 1890 that will be salvaged and reused. Mr. Fletcher said not from the vestry because it was gutted in the late 1920's when the stage was added. Mr. Fletcher continued talking about some of the interior decor and architectural elements in the buildings.
• Mr. Young inquired if the applicant intended to repaint, after stripping the paint off the masonry. Mr. Fletcher said that a clear penetrating breathable sealer would be applied to the masonry. He said that it would be basically be the same product that had been used on the stonework on the City and County Building. Mr. Young asked if the applicants had defined what type of paint stripping process would be used.
Mr. Fletcher said that it would be a chemical stripping that will be gathered up and disposed as hazardous waste. He noted that the containment has been a big issue with the neighbors.
Mr. Young inquired about any exterior or interior ornamentation or elements which could be preserved. Mr. Fletcher said that there was a gothic window in the west end and some interior doors that will be relocated. However, Mr. Fletcher said that the exterior door on the west facade would not be reused as an exterior door.
• Mr. Owen inquired about the mechanical louvers on the south elevation drawings of the 1909 chapel. Mr. Fletcher said that they would be weather louvers for the required air circulation in the mechanical room. Mr. Young said that the existing louver matches the exterior color very well. Mr. Fletcher said there will be a stone faced screen wall that will wrap that comer of the building. He said that it will be visible through an ornamental iron access gate so the finish color will be compatible. Mr. Young suggested that a contrasting color not be used.
• Mr. Gordon remarked that the exterior brick at the top of the chapel building was a lighter color. Mr. Fletcher said that the original design of the chapel, until the 1927 fire, did not have parapets on the gable ends of the building. He added that there was a gable overhang similar to the center meetinghouse building with brackets, but in the reconstruction, the parapets with the brick corbeled, gothic arched forms, were added. Mr. Gordon said that they were a close color but not identical.
• Ms. Jeppsen inquired about the exterior stage area. Mr. Fletcher pointed out that the stage area would have to be removed but reported that the fireplace and other landscaping features would be moved, but preserved.
Mr. Fletcher concluded his presentation by saying that the proposal would be a vast improvement and that the applicant was making a significant investment. He reminded the Commission that, in the past, the building had been proposed for demolition. Mr. Fletcher also said that president of the LOS Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, has been personally involved in this project. He said that he hoped, what he considered some minor issues, would not "outweigh" the larger issues and prevent this "very significant structure" from being preserved.
Ms. Blaes 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:
Mr. Kent Fetzer, who resides at 763 East 500 South, stated that he had lived on the same block as the Tenth Ward all his life. He said that he appreciated the respect that had been shown with the proposal of restoring the buildings. He talked about the benefit of returning the steeple to its original position. Mr. Fetzer discussed the alleyway between the chapel and the north building as being a hazard area with the accumulation of ice and snow. He said that the area was also an invitation to criminal and other unwanted activity. Mr. Fetzer talked about the importance of having egress and ingress from the front of the building, as well as the back for all citizens, including the handicapped and elderly. He expressed his concerns that no natural light would come into the proposed addition unless it would have access from skylights. He stated that important aspects of the renovation would be the serviceability of the building to the people and the tastefulness of the work.
Mr. Brian Jackson Fetzer, who resides at 456 South 800 East, stated that he has been a member of the Tenth Ward for many years. Mr. Fetzer presented an interesting dissertation regarding the history of the Tenth Ward as he displayed several historic photographs. He pointed out that those photographs were pictorial evidence that the windows in the schoolhouse were the same as they are now. He showed a photograph of Thomas B. Child, who Mr. Fetzer said, did much of the work on the patio and all the stonework in the garden area. Mr. Fetzer said that Mr. Child was a contributing artisan in the community and a powerful force in the field of masonry, and that his work deserved to be preserved the same way as the buildings were going to be preserved. He stated that his father, Henry P. Fetzer, was a prominent architect in Salt Lake City, who designed the ramp in the front of the chapel. He said that the existing rail work on the ramp has the same original design as the rail work on the original part of the building. Mr. Fetzer urged the Commission not to relegate the handicapped and the elderly people to the back of the building. He said that he wanted the ramp in the front preserved. Ms. Deal pointed out that there would be a ramp for front access, as well as a ramp for rear access to the chapel. Mr. Fetzer read a letter which he wrote to the first presidency of the LDS Church in 1980, when rumors were circulating that the Tenth Ward building was destined for demolition. He said that he was greatly appreciative that the church officials decided to finance the restoration of this building. Mr. Fetzer concluded by encouraging the ramp to be preserved on the front of the building, the historic windows in the building to be preserved, the stage area and the historic stone work features by Mr. Child to be preserved.
Ms. Hortense Child Smith, stated that she is a daughter-in-law of the late Bishop Thomas B. Child, and lived in the area of the Tenth Ward for many years. She said that her first husband was the only son of Mr. Child, who has since past away. Ms. Smith said that she remarried and now lives at 2942 Devonshire Circle. She stated that she was at Mr. Child's side a great deal of the time because she did all of his writings. Ms. Smith said that Mr. Child wrote volumes on the work he had done for the Gilgal Garden, as well as for the Tenth Ward building. Ms. Smith said that she was extremely pleased with the preservation effort and said that the architects had apparently done their homework. She said that she had a small but integral part of the saving of this building in 1980. Ms. Smith gave several facts of history about the building. She talked about the fire which raged the building in 1927, and that Bishop Child helped to rebuild the building. Ms. Smith said that Thomas B. Child left his mark wherever he went, not only as an artisan in masonry and stonework, but as an artist. She wanted to speak in behalf of the "Friends of Gilgal" by urging the Commission to preserve the physical legacy of the landscaping elements because they matched and were extensions of the Gilgal Garden. Ms. Smith circulated information about the Gilgal Garden to the Commission members, copies of which were filed with the minutes.
Ms. Linda Lepreau, who resides at 252 Douglas Street, stated that she was in the area of the East Central Community Council, in which the Tenth Ward and the Gilgal Garden were located. She said that she echoed what Hortense Child Smith had said and applauded the LDS Church officials for making the decision to save and restore the Tenth Ward building. Ms. Lepreau said that the landscaping elements in the garden were important to the history of the building and that they should be preserved. She would also like the amphitheater (stage) to remain. She also talked about the work of Thomas B. Child and said that she would also speak in behalf of the "Friends of Gilgal" by saying that she envisioned the garden becoming a national site that would attract visitors from around the world. Ms. Lepreau spoke of the importance of preserving Mr. Child's work and pointed out that in the Staffs findings, it was reported that "alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved." She said that she did not believe that the demolition of the stage addition was a reasonable compromise, as was suggested in the Staffs findings. In conclusion, Ms. Lepreau asked that the Commission members take the opportunity to investigate further into the project before any of the historic elements were destroyed.
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Blaes 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 followed. Ms. Deal commended the applicants for the project and said that she recognized the scope of the work. The following expressions of concern and comments were made by the Commission members: 1) pictorial evidence showed that the original steeple had shingles on the exterior, and not metal, as proposed; 2) the pictorial evidence also showed that the original chimney was masonry and the replacement chimney should be a masonry construction, and not stucco; 3) the replacement windows should have true divided lights, and storm windows on the interior could be used if energy efficiency was a factor; 4) some the rail details on the ramp in front of the building, should be salvaged and used on the new ADA ramps, if possible; and 5) Mr. Child's stonework should be preserved.
The discussion turned to the issue of the alleyway between the chapel and the meetinghouse. It was a unanimous consensus that the meeting be reopened to allow the architect to respond to the question about the area between the meetinghouse and the chapel. Mr. Fletcher said that the comments, which have been made about the area between the two buildings, was completely accurate. He said that in the restoration project, the plans show that there would be adequate drainage in that area and the unwanted activity should be alleviated because the area will be screened off with a wrought iron metal gate. Mr. Fletcher said that part of the mandate from the LDS Church was to create a building which would continue to function as a single ward meetinghouse and to meet the needs the people using the facility. He said that the circulation pattern had been reconfigured to make the use of the building more effective.
There was some discussion regarding the possibility of putting the proposed new addition in another location, so the stage area would not have to be destroyed. Mr. Fletcher said that the size of the property was not very large and that was the only place the addition could go and still make the building functional. He also said that in the renovation plans Mr. Child's stonework would be relocated, where necessary, except for the fountain and the stage.
Ms. Blaes reclosed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission continued with the executive session.
Mr. Owen suggested that the decision not to repaint the exterior brick should be made after the masonry is stripped and repaired, because some bricks are meant to be painted. Ms. Blaes said that should be reflected in the minutes and that the architects would probably make that determination.
Ms. Blaes suggested that the Commission make findings pertaining to the criteria in the applicable section of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which is Section 21A.34.020(G)(1 through 12), Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Commission Site or Contributing Structure, requires that:
In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a Landmark Commission site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission...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:
Section 21A.34.020(G}(1): A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristic of the building and its site and environment:
Staffs finding: The Tenth Ward will remain an LDS Church; no change of use is foreseeable in the future.
Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs finding.
Section 21A.34.020(G)(2): The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Staffs finding: The project complies with this standard, with the possible exception of demolishing the 1890 addition.
Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs finding.
Section 21A.34.020(G)(3): All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed.
Staffs finding: The project complies with this standard.
Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs finding.
Section 21A.34.020(G){4): Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Staffs finding: The project does not comply with this standard, but removal of the 1890 addition and of the historic landscape features is acceptable within the scope of the overall project.
Historic Landmark Commission's discussion findings: The landscaping issues are not an alteration or an addition to the site, but Ms. Giraud said that everything is called out to be preserved, except the fountain, the planters, and the stage. Ms. Blaes said that she recommended that the fountain remain because nothing would be going in its place. Ms. Jeppsen said that there should be further research done for the stage area, as well. Some members of the Commission believed that removing the stage area and preserving the remainder of the stonework, would be a compromise. A lengthy discussion followed.
The Historic Landmark Commission partially agreed with the Staffs finding, and requested that the landscaping features such as the fountain and the planters be preserved and moved to another location, if necessary.
Section 21A.34.020(G)(5): Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property, shall be preserved.
Staffs finding: The project complies with this standard.
Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs finding.
Section 21A.34.020(G)(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.
Staffs finding: The project appears to comply with this standard; the Historic Landmark Commission may wish to get further information from the applicants about the windows to be replaced.
Historic Landmark Commission's discussion and findings: The Commission disagreed with Staff's finding solely as it applied to the steeple material, the windows, and the chimney material that is being proposed for the schoolhouse. Ms. Deal said that she would trust the architect's judgment for repair or replacement but the replacement would have to follow the ordinance.
Section 21A.34.020(G)(7): Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Staffs finding: The drawings supplied to Staff by the architects reference the project specifications for masonry cleaning information. The standard LDS Church specifications require masonry cleaning methods that are usually acceptable to the Historic Landmark Commission.
Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staff's finding.
Section 21A.34.020(G)(8): Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property, neighborhood or environment.
Staffs finding: Staff feels that the new work is acceptable. (Re: previous discussion and findings for Standards 2 and 4).
Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staff's finding.
Section 21A.34.020(G)(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.
Staffs finding: Staff finds that the new work is compatible and does not compromise the historic portions of the building, and would be reversible.
Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs finding.
Section 21A.34.020(G){10): Certain building materials are prohibited, including the following: a) vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material; and b) any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials.
Staffs finding: No prohibited materials are proposed for the project.
Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs finding.
Section 21A.34.020(G){11): Any new sign and any change in the appearance of an existing sign located on a Landmark Commission site or within the "H" Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the Landmark Commission site or "H" Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21A.46, Signs.
Staffs finding: The drawings do not show any new exterior signage. The existing historical marker and flagpole on the front of the building will be retained.
Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs finding.
Section 21A.34.020(G){12): Additional design standards adopted by the Historic
Landmark Commission and City Council.
Staffs finding: No additional Historic Landmark Commission design standards are relevant to this project.
Historic Landmark Commission's findings: The Commission unanimously agreed with the Staffs finding.
Mr. Young suggested documenting the 1890 vestry addition before it was destroyed.
Ms. Deal moved for Case No. 021-98 for approval, based on the findings of fact, with a few exceptions. The approval was given for the renovation of the Tenth Ward Building with the following conditions: (1) the Historic Landmark Commission disagreed with the Staff findings for finding No. 6 and request that new drawings on the chimney, the steeple, and the windows with true divided lights be provided; (2) the Historic Landmark Commission partially agreed on the Staff findings for finding No. 4 and request that the fountain be remediated and repainted in its present location; and (3) the Historic Landmark Commission also requests that before the vestry built in 1890 is demolished that it be documented with photographs, measured elevation drawings, and plans. HABS (Historic American Building Survey) quality is not required, but they have to be of a quality to be submitted to SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) to document the building. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Ms. Deal, MS. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Parvaz were not present. The motion passed.
A subsequent motion was made.
Mr. Gordon moved that the required details, as was stated in the motion to approve Case No.021-98, be presented to Staff for final approval before a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, MS. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Parvaz were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Avenues street lighting program.
Ms. Giraud stated that she has been concerned with the variety of street lights being installed in the public right-of-way in historic districts. She circulated photographs of street lights in areas of the City. Ms. Giraud said that she was unfamiliar with the street light regulations. Ms. Giraud said that she discovered that the street light program was so popular that it has caught the attention of the City Council.
Ms. Giraud introduced Mr. John Sittner, Chair of the Avenues Community Council. She said that he had contacted her to express his interest in the street light program in the Avenues.
Mr. Sittner stated that the street lights, being installed in the strip between the road and the sidewalk, is being done through a City matching grant program. He said that the matching grant program is designed so that a group of neighbors could make application for capital improvements and the City will pay up to $5,000 of the project, which may cover only a few blocks.
Mr. Sittner passed a flyer which showed two different light poles. He said that the light that has been typically used was the light assembled and installed by Felt Lighting. Mr. Sittner also described the light provided by Holophane Lighting. As he described each type of light pole, he talked about the advantages and disadvantages of both types. Mr. Sittner said that the cost of the poles was the same and that they would be compatible with each other.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding issues relating to this matter, such as the shape of the poles, the spacing, the options of light pollution and the downward reflective capability, the electricity is paid by the person who permitted the pole to be connected to the house, installation costs, the installation technique, the gap at the base that might not conform to a slope, maintenance cost, and how the fund is handled.
Mr. Sittner said that, as chair, he would like to coordinate the efforts of the program. He asked if the Historic Landmark Commission would make a recommendation for one of the light poles for uniformity so he could submit that recommendation at the Avenues Community Council meeting. The discussion continued.
It was a consensus of the members that the Historic Landmark Commission recommended the Holophane light because it has the capability of reflecting the light towards the ground and the glass would not discolor.
Gateway Development Master Plan.
Ms. Blaes reminded the Commissioners of the public hearing for the Gateway Development Master Plan on Tuesday, August 11, 1998 in the City Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building at 6:00P.M. and encouraged members to attend and to send a unified voice a concern regarding the preservation issues. She said that a memo will be faxed to the members as a reminder.
NACP Conference in Denver from July 31 to August 2. 1998.
The members of the Historic Landmark Commission, who attended the conference, said that it was well worth their time. Ms. Giraud said that a luncheon meeting will be set up to discuss the information received from the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions conference
Ms. Blaes said that she wanted it in the records that she appreciated the financial support that the Planning Division gave to the Commission members which allowed them to attend the conference. She said that the conference was incredibly useful and a great opportunity to talk to other Commission members, who were addressing the same issues. The Historic Landmark Commission, as a whole, expressed appreciation to Mr. Wright and the Planning Division.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes 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 7:00P.M.