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 Billie Ann Devine, Maren
Jeppsen, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Dina Williams, and Lisa Miller.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were William Damery, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Lynn Morgan, Craig Paulsen, and Dina Williams. Thomas Cerruti, Rob McFarland, Heidi Swinton, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud and Lisa Miller, Planners. Mr. William T. Wright, Planning Director, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Williams. Ms. Williams 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.
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. Littig moved to approve the minutes from the July 16, 1997 meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Paulsen, unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Williams, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Swinton, and Mr. Yo1Jng were excused.
NEW CASE
Case No. 009-97, at 437 No. Center Street. by Gary Nordhoff. requesting approval of a new single-family dwelling.
Ms. Susan Deal recused herself from this portion of the meeting.
Ms. Lisa Miller 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. She indicated that the drawings, included in the staff report, showed a pediment on top of the building which had been removed. Ms. Lisa Miller said that the site plan indicated there would be uncovered parking, as well as some of the parking and turn-around area on a portion of the adjacent property to the north. Ms. Lisa Miller said that suggestion was made by Barry Walsh, the City's Transportation Engineer, because the applicant is part-owner of that adjacent property.
Ms. Lisa Miller said that the design of the building was a contemporary interpretation of an historic row house or town house. Photographs were circulated of an antique door which the applicant would like to use as the front door of the building.
Mr. Littig inquired if there were limits to the size of brick that could be used on historic homes and wanted to know the size of the brick that was proposed for the structure. He said that the brick appeared to be longer than the standard length on the renderings. Ms. Miller said that the applicant informed her that he would use regular size brick. Ms. Williams suggested that the question could be put forth to the applicant.
The applicant, Mr. Gary Nordhoff, was present. He stated that when he purchased the subject lot, his goal was to design a home for the lot that would enhance the neighborhood. He said that he believed the submitted proposal did. Mr. Nordhoff gave a brief description of the proposed project. He said that the color he chose for the brick, he believed would be complimentary to the other buildings in the area. Mr. Nordhoff displayed samples of the proposed brick and sandstone. He said that the sandstone blocks would be nine inches high and either be four, six, or nine inches in length. Mr. Nordhoff further said that the brick samples were sliced in half which were ordinarily displayed on a board, and assured the Commission that the bricks would be the standard size. He said that in the design of the building, he tried not to leave large flat areas on the elevations and explained why the concrete detail was added to break up the stucco surface. Photographs of the other properties in the neighborhood were circulated which depicted that it was not uncommon to find a two-story home next to a one-story building because the neighborhood included a mixture of home styles. Mr. Nordhoff said that he believed the height and design of the proposed structure was consistent with other homes in the area.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Mr. Morgan led the discussion by inquiring about the details. He suggested that the synthetic stucco application should be flush with the sandstone foundation. Mr. Nordhoff said what he wanted foundation portion to have a bulkier appearance to give the house more dimension and texture. He said that the sandstone blocks would be approximately two to three inches in depth and the synthetic stucco with the foam board would protrude approximately one and one-half inches, so it would be close. Mr. Morgan made some further suggestions, such as shaping the edges of the pieces of sandstone so they would not have the appearance of flagstone, which was popular in the 1950's. Mr. Nordhoff assured Mr. Morgan that the sandstone would not have a "flagstone" look. He further described the sandstone foundation by saying that the blocks would be rectangularly cut with a specified tooled edge and randomly placed, as to the length. He added that the height would be consistent and have a look of "random ashlar" masonry. Mr. Morgan further discussed the proposed brick and the traditional way of laying it.
• Mr. Damery stated that the antique door, which the applicant wanted to use, was very nice looking and expressed his concerns about installing vinyl windows in the front facade of the proposed house. He encouraged the installation of wood windows in the front. Mr. Nordhoff said that after pricing the cost of installing wood windows, his decision was based on economics which made him decide on the "AMSCO V-70" brand vinyl windows. He said that the proposal called for a recessed vinyl window with a brick frieze around the windows and concrete ledges, which would give the windows more depth and detail. A section of the proposed window was included in the staff report. Mr. Morgan suggested that the applicant walk by a house on First Avenue and C Streets because the vinyl windows have similar proportions. He also said that the frames could also be painted, if it was desired.
• Mr. Paulsen inquired about the proposed roof system. Mr. Nordhoff said that it was a membrane system that has a 15-year guarantee. He apologized for not displaying a sample of the material. Mr. Nordhoff explained how it would be installed and added that rain gutters and down spouts would be installed for the drainage of the flat roof system.
Mr. Nordhoff asked that in conclusion of any public comment, if he could answer any questions or further explain any of the details of his proposal.
Ms. Williams opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission.
Ms. Polly Hart, who owns an abutting property on the west at 442 No. Quince Street, stated that she was present at the Board of Adjustment meeting, which was mentioned in the staff report, arguing against Mr. Nordhoff's case. She said that the applicant had readjusted his plans to something she said was attractive and believed that it would fit into the neighborhood. Ms. Hart commented about another vacant property in the Capitol Hill Historic District. Ms. Hart also said that she would like to see wood windows installed in the front facade of the proposed house, but again said that it was a nice presentation.
Ms. Hermoine Jex, who resides at72 No. Wall Street, inquired about the mechanical air conditioning units and hoped they would not be place on top of the flat roof. Ms. Jex also said that she did not care for the look of a flat roof and would rather see a pitched roof on the proposed house. She made comments regarding another new project that was constructed in the district. Ms. Jex further inquired about the landscaping and the loss of trees on the property. Ms. Williams said that the landscaping information was available in the staff report.
Ms. Williams said that since the mechanical issue was not addressed in the staff report, the applicant was asked to respond. Mr. Nordhoff said that the proposal called for a central air conditioning system and the unit would be placed in the south side yard, as he pointed to the drawings. In response to the trees and foliage, the applicant said that most of the trees were junk trees and would be removed. However, he said that he was cognizant about replacing the trees and foliage, and that the plans called for more plantings. Mr. Nordhoff also pointed out that the existing rock wall would remain.
Upon receiving no further requests, Ms. Williams closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
Ms. Williams reminded the Commission that the task before them was to make a determination about approval, denial, or tabling this case, based on the staff report and the findings of fact.
• Mr. Damery said that in the past, the Commission had struggled with the use of vinyl windows versus wood windows and vinyl windows were allowed in new construction. Ms. Jeppsen pointed out that since there were very few windows in the front elevation, she did not think the cost of installing wood windows would be too prohibitive. Mr. Paulsen also said that he thought that vinyl windows would be inappropriate on that facade. Ms. Williams said that ordinarily the Commission reviewed a window section, to see the articulation of the profile of the windows. Ms. Lisa Miller circulated a brochure of the "Amsco V-70" brand window so the profile could be reviewed. Ms. Devine inquired about the precedent that could be set if wood windows were required when vinyl windows were allowed in new construction. Ms. Williams added that setting precedents could have a positive effect. She added that the Commission needed to provide this applicant and future applicants with direction in regards to materials that have not been mandated in the past.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the material, the profile, and the placement of the proposed windows. There were both comments made and recommendations given by members of the Commission as to how the vinyl windows could be installed and other pertinent matters regarding this case.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud spoke of the proposed transoms on the double-hung windows on the first floor. She said that traditionally, they were used with narrow single fixed windows. Ms. Giraud said that she did not think the proposed window configuration was a bad idea but it was troubling because that proposal would be introducing a new window-type to the area. She made the suggestion that the applicant have double-hung windows without using the transoms. Ms. Lisa Miller said that the drawing of those transoms were revised and that the applicant would be installing a much smaller transom.
Mr. Littig noted that the scale of the framing was not depicted on the drawings and expressed his concerns about how the antique door would be scaled out.
Ms. Williams said that she realized that different materials were used on the rear and side elevations than the front on many structures. She suggested that a continuation of the brick to the cornice return on both the south and north elevations, would eliminate the exposure of the short end of the brick, also that placement might provide the Commission with a better sense of the massing. Ms. Williams said that the renderings show that the facades flatten out and, visually, the massing got lost. Mr. Paulsen said that, traditionally, the brick would go around the corner of a building at least as far as quoins would be, approximately two feet. Mr. Littig thought that was a good point. Ms. Mitchell indicated that she agreed with that suggestions and added that she also encouraged the applicant to install wood windows on the front elevation.
The discussion turned to the wording of the motion. Ms. Williams said that the staff report stated that the project, based on the findings of fact, would qualify for a Certificate of Appropriateness. She noted that the Commission had introduced issues that were design elements and her question was if they needed to be resolved at this meeting or given to the Architectural Subcommittee to review. Ms. Williams pointed out that the Commission should be mindful than certain criteria in an existing ordinance had to be administered and that the Commission needed to support any suggestions for design or material changes. She said that, based on comments made by some Commission members, the relationship of materials, which would fall under the Composition of Principal Facades, might warrant the requirement for wood windows on the front, rather than vinyl, because they would present a stronger profile, in this case. The discussion continued. Mr. Littig offered suggestions that could be included in the motion.
Mr. Littig moved that Case No. 009-97 be approved, based on the findings of fact, included in the staff report, with the added changes: 1) one course of brick from the front elevation to be wrapped around the corners of the building on both the north and south elevations; and 2) the vinyl windows to be installed with wood molding to add more depth to the profile and more detail. It was seconded by Mr. Paulsen. Mr. Damery, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Paulsen, unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Williams, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal was in a state of recusancy. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Swinton, and Mr. Young were excused. The motion carried.
• OTHER BUSINESS
Review and comment of a Highland Park Historic District to be included on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud stated that she received the nomination to include the Highland Park Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places from Polly Hart, who recently graduated from the University of Utah's Historic Preservation Program, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She said that as part of Ms. Hart's master’s degree, she wrote a history of the Highland Park Subdivision. She said that this was not a local district nomination so the City would have no jurisdiction over this district, if the nomination is approved. Ms. Giraud encouraged a National Register district because that way the property owners could take advantage of the State and Federal historic tax credits. She said that the Historic Landmark Commission would only provide comment regarding the nomination to SHPO which is the State Preservation Office. Ms. Giraud added that this presentation was done as a courtesy to local government. She stated that if the Commission believed that the nomination adequately described the history of the area, then that information would be conveyed to SHPO. Ms. Giraud concluded by saying that SHPO would run it by their review board, then it would go to the National Park Service for the final adoption, and that a motion was not necessary.
Ms. Polly Hart presented an overview of the Highland Park area. She said the area encompassed 27 square blocks in the approximate vicinity of Parkway Avenue to 2700 South and Elizabeth Street to 1500 East. Ms. Hart's slide presentation included the history of the subdivision, showing early photographs of the development, many structures in the area, noting the diverse architecture, materials, and the landscaped streets in the area, that were still existing.
After the presentation, there was a short discussion. A question was asked about the original developers. Ms. Hart said that the original developers, Kimball and Richards, were responsible for many subdivisions.
It was an unanimous decision of the Historic Landmark Commission that a favorable recommendation be transferred to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to recommend that the nomination of the Highland Park Historic District be included on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Williams reminded the Commission that the "Design Guidelines for Residential
Historic Districts in Salt Lake City" will be presented to the City Council on August 12, 1997 for adoption and urged the Commission members to be in attendance to show support that this document needed to be approved.
Ms. Deal said that the "Environmental Impact Statement" was out for the light rail corridor from the airport to the University of Utah which could potentially have an effect on three historic districts. She said that a volunteer from the Commission was needed to read the statement and report to the Commission so that comments could be made to the officials. Mr. Littig volunteered to work with Ms. Giraud to obtain a copy of that statement, read, and report to the Commission on any impact of the South Temple, University, and Central City Historic Districts.
Ms. Williams also discussed that an update of the South Temple street renovation needed to be included on a future Historic Landmark Commission's agenda. Ms. Giraud agreed. A short discussion followed.
A comment was made by Mr. Gordon, regarding Case No. 009-97. Ms. Williams said that the case could not be reopened but suggested that he work with the Staff on the details that were included in the approval.
Ms. Lisa Miller informed the Commission that Mr. Art Brothers filed an appeal to the City's Land Use Appeals Board regarding the Historic Landmark Commission's decision to determine that the home at 39 No. Q Street was a "contributory" structure to the district. Ms. Miller gave a brief overview of this case for the benefit of the new Commission members. She said that, as of this meeting, there was no date set. Mr. Wright pointed out that the hearing would be public and comments would be allowed for the clarity of issues. He also said that the review would be on the same data that was on record and that no new evidence would be introduced. A short discussion followed. In conclusion, Mr. Wright stated that the Commission would be informed of the date and place of the hearing, when it was scheduled.
• Ms. Elizabeth Giraud reported that the Commission meeting on August 20, 1997 was canceled and the following meeting will be on Wednesday, September 3, 1997.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.ty1.