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 Noreen Heid, William Littig, Elizabeth Giraud, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen. Pete Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Vicki Mickelsen, and Alex Protasevich were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Parvaz moved to approve the minutes from the July 3, 2002 meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 021-02, at 827 E. Second Avenue, by R. H. Keddington, Jr., requesting to construct a one-story rear addition to an existing two-story house. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Lew 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. She stated that Mr. R. H. Keddington, Jr. is requesting approval to replace the existing rear additions.
Ms. Lew gave the following background information: According to the historic site form completed in 1980, Thorvald Orlob constructed this Victorian Eclectic style home in 1891. Orlob worked as a bookkeeper for ZCMI and lived in the home with his wife, Dorthea, until his death in the late 1920's. Following the death of Mrs. Orlob, the home was sold to Thomas J. Bloomfield, a carpenter, in 1940. The extensions to the rear of the home are later additions.
Ms. Lew stated that the applicant was proposing a one-story addition, with approximately 700 additional square feet of space {not including an unfinished basement level), which would replace the existing additions to the rear. She said that the finished portion of the addition would provide space for a bathroom, kitchen, and an additional bedroom or family area. Ms. Lew talked about the proposed materials for the addition, which would be shiplap wood siding to match the existing siding and architectural grade asphalt shingles for the roof. She added that vinyl-clad wood windows and a wood French door also were proposed for the new addition, with a mixture of double-hung windows on the east facade and glass block on the west facade windows.
Ms. Lew reported that all the proposed work must comply with height, yard, and bulk requirements of the Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" zoning district. The zone allows single-family and twin homes as permitted uses.
Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020(G), H. Historic Preservation Overlay of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City:
Staff determined the following standards are most pertinent to this application:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Staff's Discussion: This house is a simple one and one-half story structure with a gabled roof. These details would remain; however, the proposed new construction would replace the later additions to the rear of the historic structure.
Staff's findings of fact: Placing the new addition to the rear of the historic structure will minimize the visual impact on the primary structure and allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent.
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.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed new construction meets this standard.
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Staff's discussion: Although the existing additions would be removed, this approach has been approved by the Historic Landmark Commission in the past. Staff believes such additions can be successful if the original form of the primary structure is retained and the design of the new addition is compatible with the historic character of the original structure.
Staff's findings of fact: The character-defining elements of the primary structure will be retained and preserved if the proposed addition is constructed.
9. Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Staff's discussion: Although the proposed addition is large in relation to the existing building footprint, the mass of the addition is located behind and is subordinate to the original portion of the house. However, the materials and details of the addition should distinguish it from the historic portion of the building.
The proposed windows and doors are compatible in scale and proportion with the doors and windows seen on the historic building. Staff, however, suggests that additional openings be added to create more visual interest and a better balance of the fenestration pattern on the addition. In particular, placing another window on the east elevation would improve the solid-to-void ratio. Vinyl clad windows have typically been allowed by the Historic Landmark Commission on rear additions to contributing building, when the size and proportion of the windows are similar to those of the historic building.
The massing of the new construction will help make the addition distinguishable from the original portion of the building, but the plans show painted wood siding to match the existing. The Historic Landmark Commission may wish to consider a subtle change in materials or a vertical decorative elements to further define the transition from old to new construction.
Staffs finding of fact: The main portion of the historic building will not be affected, and staff believed that no character-defining architectural features on the back of the house would be negatively affected by the construction of a new addition.
Ms. Lew stated that Staff determined that Section 8.0, Additions, of the Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City would also be applicable in this case. A copy of the section on additions to historic structures is attached to the staff report and filed with the minutes. She stated that Staff found that the proposed addition would be in keeping with the standards outlined in the design guidelines.
Ms. Lew offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends approval of the proposed addition if the following conditions are met: 1) Additional openings are added to create more visual interest and a better balance of the fenestration pattern on the addition; 2) If it is determined that a greater differentiation of the addition from the historic building is required, the plans should be modified to reflect this determination; and 3) This approval is for design only. The request must meet all other applicable City requirements.
Ms. Lew circulated colored photographs of the property to the members of the Commission.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Gordon stated, for the records, that the architect who drew the plans for this proposal is a fellow employee and works in the same building. He clarified that the architect did the work at home and the project was not part of the office business. Mr. Gordon inquired if this presented a conflict of interest. Ms. Giraud said since the architect worked on his own time and the project was not scheduled as part of the office, she believed it would not be considered a conflict of interest.
Mr. Simonsen asked if Mr. Gordon had any involvement with the plans for the project. Mr. Gordon stated that he had no involvement nor was he consulted in any way. Mr. Simonsen stated that he appreciated Mr. Gordon bringing this to the attention of the Historic Landmark Commission and declared that this incident was not a conflict of interest.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. RH Keddington, Jr. the applicant, was present. He said that he had no objection to any of the comments in the staff report. He inquired if the Commission would be amenable if he used a different width of the lap siding to show the differential to the original building. He also asked about the additional windows.
Ms. Lew suggested that additional windows could be added to the east and north facades to add more fenestration. However, she said that she did not know about the needed space inside.
Mr. Keddington agreed that additional windows could be added to the east elevation for more light. He stated that he would prefer the additional wall space on the interior of the north facade of the proposed addition.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by acknowledging Mr. Keddington's question about the lap siding. He stated that he thought the different widths might be an appropriate way to distinguish the old building from the new addition. Mr. Simonsen said that he really did not believe that was much of an issue given the height of the building changes. Mr. Keddington said that he has to replace some of the siding on the house, due to water damage, and said much of the milling cost was changing the width of the blade, so he was hoping to use the same width for the replacement siding and the siding for the new addition.
• Mr. Littig inquired if the applicant was going to change the siding on the house. Mr. Keddington talked about the areas on the house where the siding needed to be replaced. He added that it would be easier to mill the lap siding the same width. Mr. Keddington stated if the Commission believed the width of the siding was an important issue, he would comply. Mr. Littig pointed out that the pitch of the roof would not be as high as the existing additions and inquired if that was for mechanical reasons. Mr. Keddington remarked that the existing additions were built at different times long before he purchased the house. Mr. Simonsen said the upper windows on the rear of the original structure would be lost if the roof on the addition was steeper. Mr. Keddington said that the pitch of the roof was determined by the upper windows. Mr. Littig said he thought the same pitch could be used. A short discussion followed. Mr. Keddington pointed out that the existing additions were not built on foundations. He added that was the reason why he wanted to demolish them and construct a new addition.
• Mr. Gordon clarified that there were no footings on those additions. Mr. Keddington said that they were built by laying the brick on dirt. The applicant added that the foundation, on the original structure, had to be reinforced by putting a new foundation inside of the existing brick one when the basement was dug out.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
The discussion focused on the matter of differentiating the addition from the original structure. The following suggestions were offered: 1) Using different widths of lap siding; 2) Painting the siding on the addition a compatible color; 3) Using a different material for the siding on the addition; or 4) Adding a 1"x 6" vertical trim to show the break.
Ms. Lew inquired about the additional windows. Mr. Simonsen said he did not know if it was problematic if the solid-to-void ratio was not consistent with the existing building and asked if the other Commissioners had an opinion in that matter. There was further discussion about the windows.
Mr. Simonsen said that the only thing he found odd was the way the bay windows were designed. He said that the bay on the east elevation of the proposed addition looked to be a little small and not characteristic of a typical bay window. Mr. Simonsen said that bay windows are designed to allow more light into the room and suggested doubling the window space as an appropriate change.
Ms. Giraud asked if the Commission was comfortable with Staff reviewing the final drawings. Mr. Simonsen suggested that any recommendations made by the Commission be specified.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved to approve Case No. 021-02, as submitted, with the exception that the material for the new addition should be reviewed by Staff.
After a short discussion, the motion was amended.
Amended final motion:
Based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation, Mr. Littig moved to approve Case No. 021-02, as submitted, with the exception that the new addition would have to be differentiated from the original structure by a vertical trim or some method that would be approved by Staff. Further, that any design change in the windows to the addition would be reviewed by Staff prior to construction. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 022-02, at 1342 East 300 South. by Kathleen H. Kristensen. requesting legalization of a one-story rear addition which was not constructed according to the approved plans. The house is located in the University Historic District
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight stated that Kathleen H. Kristensen, as owner of the house, is requesting to legalize a rear addition constructed in 2001. He said that the base zoning of the property is "R-2", which is a single- and two-family residential district, and the purpose of which is "to preserve and protect for single-family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of single and two-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of two-family dwelling units." Mr. Knight said that the zone allows single-family and twin homes as permitted uses, and two-family dwellings with some restrictions. He noted that the property is a single-family rental unit.
Mr. Knight gave the following background information: The University Historic Overlay District was created in November of 1991. The applicant purchased the house on contract in 1999, after it was on the market for some time. Because she accrued a mortgage for the house, a title report was not obtained for the sale. The title report is the usual way new owners become aware when a house is located in an historic district. Ms. Kristensen stated in her letter that she was unaware of the historic district designation. (See the attached letter from Ms. Kristensen).
Mr. Knight stated that Ms. Kristensen renovated and upgraded the interior of the house, and hired contractors, who obtained permits for electrical and plumbing work and a kitchen remodel. He indicated that on April 18, 2001, a City building inspector observed work underway on an addition at the back of the house. Mr. Knight added that the inspector issued a stop work order and told the workers to obtain the required permits for the work. Mr. Knight said that on April 25, 2002, he met with T.J. Ataata, of T.J. Construction, who told him that he was the contractor on the project. He said that they discussed the design for the addition, and Mr. Knight identified certain problems with the design of the addition, as it was currently being constructed and shown on the drawings submitted for a permit. Mr. Knight stated that Mr. Ataata agreed to his suggestions, and he issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition on the condition that the following changes be made: 1) The roof slope of the addition would be increased to match the pitch of the existing house; 2) The existing vinyl sliders would be removed and be replaced with wood double-hung windows in the same openings; 3) A required egress window would be moved from the east side of the house, where it would be prominent, to the west side of the house where it would be less visible from the street; and 4) Wood siding would be used on the addition instead of stucco that was originally proposed.
Mr. Knight stated that Mr. Ataata obtained a building permit and work on the addition proceeded. However, he added that the contractor did not follow through on the revisions to the building that he agreed to make. Mr. Knight said that when the City enforcement staff inspected the property, it was noted that work on the addition had not been completed according to the approved drawings. He pointed out that Staff attempted to contact the owner, but had difficulty finding Ms. Kristensen because the previous owner was still the owner of record.
Mr. Knight indicated that after Staff located Ms. Kristensen, she tried several ways, including small claims court, to get Mr. Ataata to correct the problems with the addition. He added that she was only able to speak to him once on the phone.
Mr. Knight reported that Ms. Kristensen met with the Architectural Subcommittee on May 22, 2002, to discuss legalizing the addition. He said that the members of the subcommittee sympathized with Ms. Kristensen, but they believed the changes to the addition were necessary in order to legalize it. He added that the subcommittee suggested replacing the windows visible from University Street with more compatible units and siding the addition with horizontal wood or Hardiboard siding.
Mr. Knight indicated that the applicant chose to request legalization of the addition in its current condition. He stated that Ms. Kristensen noted that the house had an out·of period rear addition, smaller in size, but clad with similar plywood material with similar windows. (See the attached appraisal photographs). Mr. Knight stated that the applicant also said that she spent considerable time and money improving the house, and she was not aware that the addition was not constructed according to the approved drawings until the day she was contacted by the building inspector. Mr. Knight pointed out that she has tried to resolve the problem with the contractor, but she has been unsuccessful in locating him. He stated that the applicant believes that the City should take these issues into account.
Ms. Knight stated, "Although Ms. Kristensen entered into a good faith agreement with her contractor that the building addition would be constructed according to the approved drawings, and the contractor did not deliver on that agreement, the owner is ultimately responsible for ensuring that a property meets the standards of the City. This places the owner in a difficult situation in cases like this, where the contractor has disappeared. However, the Commission must look at the case from a design standpoint, and hold this owner to the same standards that would be required of any owner in the historic district."
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission should use the following standards in considering this application:
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; and
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 discussion: Staff believes that the massing, size, and location of the addition are in keeping with the standards. The rear of the building is the most logical place for an addition, and the overall shape and size of the addition is similar to surrounding buildings along both University and 300 South Streets. Although the roof pitch was to be increased as a condition of the original Certificate of Appropriateness, Staff notes that there is a window on the south gable of the historic portion of the house that would be obscured if the roof pitch were increased. Thus, Staff finds that leaving the roof as is would be acceptable.
Although a similar T-1 11 style plywood siding was used on a small rear addition of the house, it was probably constructed before the University Historic District was established, and the Commission requires that any new work meet the historic district standards. As noted in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, materials used on additions should be similar to what was used historically, such as wood clapboard siding or brick. The Commission has consistently not allowed plywood siding as a material for additions, even on additions that are less visible from the street than this one. It is Staff's opinion that a horizontal wood or Hardiboard siding could be an acceptable substitute material. The Commission may wish to discuss other options with Ms. Kristensen.
Likewise, the windows on the addition are not in keeping with the Commission's standards, even though similar windows were used on the previous non-historic addition. The type (horizontal slider) and material (vinyl) of windows are not typically allowed on contributing buildings in the City historic district. The size, proportions, location, and number of the existing windows are in keeping with the windows on the existing house. Staff suggests that an acceptable solution to this issue would be to install wood single- or double-hung windows in the existing openings. A clad wood window might also be acceptable if properly detailed and set into the wall. Modern double-hung windows (and historic double-hung windows in good repair) have counterweight systems that ensure the window will stay open, and not slam shut, as the applicant suggests.
Finally, Staff notes that the soffit and fascia of the addition are clad with aluminum. This was not included on the permit drawings. Staff recommends that the aluminum soffit and fascia be removed and replaced with a wood fascia and soffit.
Staff’s findings of fact: The existing addition meets the standards of the ordinance, with the exception of the existing plywood siding, window style and material, and the aluminum fascia and soffits.
Mr. Knight also referred to Section 8.0, Additions, in the Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. Mr. Knight indicated in his staff report which standards were applicable to this case. A copy of Section 8.0 was filed with the minutes.
Staff's discussion: Staff does not believe the removal of the small porch addition at the back of the house is an issue in this case. No important historic or architectural features were removed during construction of the addition. The use of the property has been maintained in this addition. Staff believes that the primary design issue in this case is whether or not the addition, as constructed, is compatible with the character of the house.
Mr. Knight said that the Planning Staff would continue to work with the zoning enforcement and the permit staff to assist Ms. Kristensen in obtaining a settlement with her contractor. He offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the addition be legalized with the following condition: 1) A horizontal wood or smooth finish Hardiboard clapboard siding (or another acceptable wall material) shall be installed on the walls of the addition; 2) The existing vinyl horizontal sliding windows shall be removed and replaced with single- or double-hung wood or clad wood windows in the existing openings; 3) The aluminum fascia and soffit shall be removed and replaced with a wood fascia and soffit of acceptable design; and 4) Any other exterior work required to resolve the pending zoning enforcement case shall meet the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Staff also recommends that the Commission delegate final approval to Staff, with input from the Architectural Subcommittee, if necessary."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
There was a discussion regarding the inaccuracies in the drawings. Some Commissioners found it was difficult to determine how the addition is attached to the main structure.
Mr. Simonsen said he believed that the old addition was removed. Mr. Littig said it appeared that it was not removed and the new addition was attached to the old addition. Mr. Knight pointed out in the photographs where the roof structure of the old addition is located.
Mr. Simonsen said that the drawings were irrelevant because the addition had been built. Mr. Littig clarified the reason for his questions. He said that the doors impact the exterior of the building. He suggested that the applicant replace one of the doors with a window.
Mr. Knight agreed that the drawings are not accurate. He said, "It was a judgment call on my part he was so agreeable that he duped me too like the owner. It seemed like he knew what he was doing. I felt like I was comfortable issuing the permit."
Mr. Littig asked about the aluminum soffits. Mr. Knight said they were not on the drawings that were submitted, and they did not appear on the photographs of the work taken by zoning enforcement.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicants, Paul and Kathleen Kristensen, were present. Mr. Kristensen indicated that he was Kathleen's husband. Mr. Kristensen said that they were in the process of building a landing and changing the stairs up to the door on the east elevation. He indicated that he had spoken with the inspector. Mr. Kristensen circulated additional photographs of the house and a new drawing of the addition. A copy of the drawing was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Kristensen pointed out that the pitch of the roof on the new addition is the same as the old addition. He also said that because of the addition's construction, a window could not replace the door.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Heid led the discussion by inquiring if the landing and the sidewalk would be concrete. Mr. Kristensen said that the landing and stairway would be made out of redwood.
• Ms. Rowland asked if the addition was a separate rentable unit from the brick part of the house. Mr. Kristensen said that it was not. Ms. Rowland inquired if the door was the only access into the addition and why a window could not replace the door. Mr. Kristensen said that the door was used as the back door to the house. Ms. Rowland indicated that it appeared like a solid wall between the additions. Mr. Kristensen said that one can access the rest of the house from this back door.
• Mr. Gordon talked about the contractor "hiding out in Hawaii". Ms. Kristensen said that when she contacted him on his cell phone, he said that he would contact them to make restitution. She added that she has not been able to contact him, since their conversation.
• Mr. Simonsen stated that the decision of the Historic Landmark Commission would be based on the guidelines and ordinance. He talked about the unfortunate
arduous experience the applicants had been through, but indicated that the incident could not impact the Commission's decision.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session.
Executive Session
Mr. Simonsen recommended making a motion based on the findings of fact for this case. He added that he hoped that the motion would include some specific recommendations, with Staff review or additional Architectural Subcommittee review to bring this into conformance.
Mr. Gordon inquired if the exterior landing and steps would typically be approved administratively. Ms. Giraud answered affirmatively. There was some discussion if the landing and steps would be reviewed separately. Ms. Giraud suggested that the motion include all aspects of the proposal.
Ms. Rowland pointed out that the Commission did not have a clear understanding what was being proposed for the landing and stairs and suggested referring the applicant to the Architectural Subcommittee for a final review, and either have the final approval by the subcommittee or Staff.
There was a short discussion regarding the size of landing that the City code requires. Ms. Giraud indicated that Mr. Kristensen had a plan where the stairs went down both sides of the landing. The discussion continued regarding the set back of the side yard and if there was enough room for the steps to come straight out from the landing.
Mr. Littig said, "This building is real sad. This is very unfortunate that it was constructed in this manner. Someone put up the cheapest building they could and we are stuck with it on the back of an historic building. Even if we just fix what is there it is still a tragic connection to the old addition."
First motion:
Based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation, Mr. Littig moved to approve the legalization of the addition for Case No. 022-02, with the following conditions: 1) A horizontal wood or smooth finish Hardiboard clapboard siding (or another acceptable wall material) shall be installed on the walls of the addition; 2) The existing vinyl horizontal sliding windows shall be removed and replaced with single or double-hung wood or clad wood windows in the existing openings; 3) The aluminum fascia and soffit shall be removed and replaced with a wood fascia and soffit of an acceptable design; 4) The landing, stairs, and sidewalk be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for design review; and 5) Any other exterior work required to resolve the pending zoning enforcement case shall meet the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Simonsen asked for a point of clarification. He inquired if the motion applied to all the vinyl windows in the addition because in the past, the Commission had allowed some vinyl windows if they are not visible from the street. Mr. Littig indicated that the windows in the west and south elevations are visible.
Mr. Gordon pointed out that the original Certificate of Appropriateness mentioned increasing the roof slope to match the pitch of the house. He added that the roof slope matches the front porch and not the house and inquired if that fact should be added to the motion. Mr. Littig said that it was not included in Staff’s recommendations. He added that the appropriate slope to match would have been the slope on the rear addition but it does not match that. Mr. Simonsen said that it was not unusual to have a different slope on a rear addition and the Commission has both historic and recent examples that were approved.
Mr. Gordon stated that it should be noted that the decision made at this meeting would supersede the original Certificate of Appropriateness.
Final amended motion:
Based on Staff's findings of fact and recommendation, Mr. Littig moved to approve the legalization of the addition for Case No. 022-02, with the following conditions: 1) A horizontal wood or smooth finish Hardiboard clapboard siding (or another acceptable wall material) shall be installed on the walls of the addition; 2) "the existing vinyl horizontal sliding windows on the east and south elevations shall be removed and replaced with single- or double-hung wood or clad wood windows in the existing openings. The west window can remain in its current design and material; 3) The aluminum fascia and soffit shall be removed and replaced with a wood fascia and soffit of an acceptable design; 4) The landing, stairs, and sidewalk shall be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for design review; and 5) Any other exterior work required to resolve the pending zoning enforcement case shall be approved by Staff if the work meets the standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
A short discussion following and Mr. Simonsen explained the contents of the motion to the applicants.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the National Alliance of Preservation Commission Conference.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he attended the National Alliance of Preservation Commission Conference (NAPCC) this last weekend in San Antonio, TX, along with , Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Giraud, Mr. Knight, and Ms. Lew. He asked if Staff wanted to present a summary of the conference.
Ms. Giraud said that the conference is the only forum for people who work with preservation issues to make contacts for possible solutions to problems. She indicated that the conference started six years ago and is held every two years, and that she had attended all three conferences. Ms. Giraud said that she has found the conference to be very helpful. She said that the format of the sessions promotes interaction between Commissioners from different cities and people who work with varying degrees of complexity. Ms. Giraud said that it was good to have "an ambience of people who feel like I do".
Mr. Littig inquired if a website was available. Ms. Giraud said that the NAPCC does have a website and she would locate the address.
Ms. Lew pointed out that it was her first conference. She said that she attended sessions on code enforcement, design issues, financial programs for commissions, and ways to generate a broad base of support and found them to be very helpful. Ms. Lew said that the conference provides networking relationships and partnerships in the cause of preservation.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, the Planning Director, indicated that the Historic Landmark Commission would have its own code enforcement person. She said she could see that this has been needed since she first started working in the Planning Division. She also said that Mr. Goldsmith wants Staff and the Commission to come up with a "wish" list. She talked about how the Preservation Staff is hampered by not having enough money in the budget to send out big mailings. Ms. Giraud said that the informative Annual Report that Mr. Knight put together could only be mailed to a few people.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the two sessions he attended were particularly helpful. He said that a whole gamut of different issues and concerns were discussed. Mr. Simonsen indicated that he discovered that this Commission is one of the more established preservation commissions and has as many staff members as other cities twice the size of Salt Lake City.
Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission can be involved as an educational advocacy and should be working on building strategic partnerships with elected officials and other preservation commissions within this community. He stated that the Commission could work with allied organizations, such as the Utah State Historical Society and the Utah Heritage Foundation. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that both have ongoing training programs and workshops in which the Commission could participate and learn ways to educate the public. He added that those organizations obviously appeal to a much wider audience than just Salt Lake City, but maybe there is way the Commission can "piggyback" on what those organizations are doing to help educate preservation issues specific for this community. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that they were member-based organizations and catered to their members. Ms. Lew indicated that Staff does participate in those organizations.
Mr. Littig talked about the difficulty in communicating with those two organizations, even though he was a member. Mr. Simonsen stated that he could do more to promote communication because he is a representative of the Utah Heritage Foundation on the Historic Landmark Commission. He indicated that he would work on that matter. Ms. Lew suggested that now is a opportune time because the Utah Heritage Foundation will have a new director shortly.
Mr. Simonsen summarized the areas of interest of the conference that made an impression on him in the following manner:
o The Historic Landmark Commission is the official representative for the City and not the Staff. It is the Commission's role to take the initiative on outreach, education, and advocacy issues.
o Some preservation commissions have very effective subcommittees, such as the Architectural Subcommittee. Find ways to involve all members of the Commission, not just the architects, beyond just the Commission meetings. Being effectively involved in the community would expand the capabilities of the Commissioner's talents and expertise. By doing this, it would bring more awareness to preservation issues and to what the Commission does. He identified other subcommittees that he believed would be beneficial to the Commission:
A documentation subcommittee that would meet as needed to assist Staff in determining what would meet the requirements for documentation. The subcommittee would review submittals, like the Architectural Subcommittee does. Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Christensen, and Mr. Ashdown are involved with developing clearer guidelines for the Promised Valley Playhouse.
A subcommittee for the Commission's citizens awards program, establishing criteria and developing categories for the selection of outstanding projects in historic districts.
A subcommittee that is focused on advocacy and outreach education opportunities and to look at ways the Historic Landmark Commission can interface with community councils. Participating in community newsletters. This would be a good opportunity to go the City Council and explain how the budget restraints have not allowed for adequate postage for mailings that would be helpful for those residents living in historic districts and inform them of the resources available to them. The members of the Commission acting in an advocate role could be more effective with the City Council, than Staff.
An enforcement subcommittee that would work with the City's enforcement officials on enforcement issues and in reviewing cases to help determine when enforcement is appropriate.
A subcommittee that would work on developing relationships with elected officials. To look seriously at having regular briefings with the City Council or an educational workshop where the Commission could help elected officials have more of an understanding of preservation issues and what the Commission accomplishes. To try and develop effective ways of working together and supporting each other rather than competing with one another like what is happening with the Capitol Hill RDA project. The members of the Commission are also the City Council's constituencies and should have as much voice as anyone.
A subcommittee that would be advocates to the media. He is working with media contacts trying to develop a public awareness campaign to save the Promised Valley Playhouse. The Commission approved that demolition but no one on the Commission wants to see that building demolished. The ordinance is based on the outcome of an economic hardship determination. The Commission had no other choice but to be fair and not arbitrary under the ordinance. The members of the Commission could be advocates for these kinds of issues. He is working on a presentation to the editorial board of the Salt Lake Tribune to "pitch" to them what he thinks would be a very timely editorial and opinion on the importance of that landmark structure and to try gathering more public support.
o Training workshops could be held once or twice a year, especially for new members of the Commission that would specifically address the responsibilities of the Commission, the conduct of the members and how to act responsibly, the criteria of framing a motion and referencing the City's ordinance and the Staff's findings of fact, as well as other pertinent issues.
o He said that it was fortunate that the Commission has no legal problems and no litigation pending which many other preservation commissions are encountering. He credited Staff with the outstanding staff reports and minutes that enable the Commission to keep on top of things, legally.
o Mr. Simonsen said that there are many people who understand the issues of preservation. He added the Historic Landmark Commission only sees the cases that are controversial or problematic.
A discussion took place relative to some timely issues facing the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Littig suggested putting a memo in the monthly bulletin that the Avenues Community Council sends out. Ms. Rowland said the same for the Capitol Hill Community Council.
Ms. Giraud cited an incident where a member of the City Council would have benefited by having more education and understanding about the role of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Littig said that he believed this Commission is good about thinking "outside the box". He added that he wished there were more forums for advocacy.
Ms. Giraud talked about a session she attended at the conference where there was a discussion about new design and how discouraging it is that better modern or contemporary designs for new construction are not see. She pointed out that most of the Salt Lake City's historic districts are eclectic in design and there is a long line of architectural history to substantiate the ability to promote good new residential design.
Ms. Giraud relayed an incident where Roger Borgenicht of ASSIST conducted a symposium trying to encourage good residential design primarily for single-family and low density residences. She called him because no one had thought of calling Staff. Ms. Giraud said that she told Mr. Borgenicht that the best designs of new homes are in historic districts. She added that many of the homes were then included in his presentation.
A short discussion followed regarding other aspects of the conference and the San Antonio area.
Preservation website.
Ms. Giraud said that Staff has been working with a consultant setting up a website. She said that the consultant is being paid by the CLG (Certified Local Government) grant from last year. She said the address of a draft version of the website is www.heycats.com/ced/HLC. She said after the website is completed it will be part of the official City website at www.slgov.com. Ms. Giraud said she would E-Mail the address with more information to the Commissioners.
Ms. Heid inquired if the website would be linked to the City's website and Ms. Giraud said that it would.
Vacancies on the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Simonsen said there are fifteen available positions on the Historic Landmark Commission, of which only nine are filled. He said that he received word that Mr. Protasevich would be relocating to Seattle so he would be resigning from the Commission. Mr. Knight stated that nine is the Commission's minimum. Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission desperately needs to fill those other seats. He hoped that the Commissioners would come forth with some suggestions. He added that the members of the Commission have to live within the boundaries of Salt Lake City.
Update on Pioneer Park/Olympic Legacy.
Mr. Littig said that the Commission's subcommittee is taking a more proactive role in presenting ideas to SLOG rather than tolerating what SLOG wants to present to the subcommittee. Mr. Littig said there was some conclusion made that the Hoberman Arch and the cauldron would not be in the park. He also said that there does not seem to be any talk about making an elevation change in the park. Mr. Littig spoke of other ideas and suggestions that have come out of the meetings. He said that a representative of G.S.B.S. Architects met with the subcommittee and it appears that SLOC has given that firm an opportunity to develop a proposal.
Mr. Simonsen said that SLOC was originally scheduled to present a proposal at this meeting for the whole Commission to review. He said that the subcommittee has been meeting since the end of June and all through the month of July. Mr. Simonsen said that the Mayor and the Planning Director in consultation with the City Council determined that they do want some sort of Olympic Legacy from SLOC and said that they will put a proposal together they believe would be appropriate. He added that they will take the next two or three weeks to develop a proposal.
Back yards covered with asphalt.
Mr. Littig talked about the property that was reviewed earlier where the entire back yard is covered with asphalt. Ms. Giraud said that the Planning Commission initiated that proposal as a way of getting vehicles from parking on the street. She noted that the City received a "slug" of applications after that was approved. Mr. Littig said that it seemed like it should only be allowed for a percentage of the yard. Ms. Giraud said that perhaps there should be a landscaped strip so the asphalt could not go right up to the building. Everyone agreed this is a problem in residential areas.
Ms. Giraud suggested that the Historic Landmark Commission initiate a petition to have the Planning Commission re-look at that issue, then the City would be forced to review the issue.
Member of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Mr. Simonsen reported that Vicki Mickelsen, a member of the Commission, was undergoing surgery today and pointed out that a card was circulating if anyone wanted to write a "get well" message to her. On behalf of the Commission, he wished her a speedy recovery.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Littig moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 5:35P.M.