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 Pete Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Elizabeth Giraud, Janice Lew, and Everett Joyce.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Lee White. Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson, were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, Janice Panichello, Associate Planner, Everett Joyce, Principal Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Mickelsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance 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.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired if all Commissioners had the opportunity to visit the sites that would be the subject of discussion at this meeting. The Commissioners indicated that they had visited the site.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Ms. Mickelsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Victoria Gilbert, who resides at 669 North 200 West, stated that she was concerned with the traffic and parking in her neighborhood. She said that she lives across the street from a business which is creating a traffic problem every day because contractors, engineers, and others park in front of her house and in front of other residences on the street. Ms. Gilbert indicated that she is going to school as well as working and she seldom can park in front of her house so she has to park wherever she can on the street. She pointed out that the City's parking enforcement people drive up and down the street checking on the line of cars so she asked an employee the purpose for them doing that because conditions have not changed. Ms. Gilbert expressed concern that the business did not provide enough off-street parking.
Mr. Zunguze responded by saying that if Ms. Gilbert should come to the Planning Office in the next few days and speak to either Ms. Giraud or Ms. Lew, Staff would coordinate with the City's Transportation Division to find out what can be done to help the situation.
As there were no additional remarks, Ms. Mickelsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze, the Planning Director, said that he had a couple of items to discuss with the Commission.
Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff appeared before the City Council two weeks ago in regards to the Legislative Action. He added that from all perspective, he thought the meeting went very well. Mr. Zunguze pointed out that the most critical achievement was sharing with the Council, the knowledge and education of the value and importance of preservation in the city. He added that the members of the City Council received a good understanding of the contribution preservation is making to the vitality of the city. Mr. Zunguze mentioned that the discussion did not cover all the issues and the City Council will reward the Planning Staff with another opportunity to complete the discussion on the Legislative Action, or at least complete the discussion regarding the implementation component of the Legislative Action.
Mr. Zunguze thanked the Commission members, especially the ones who attended the City Council meeting which added support to the Historic Landmark Commission and the Legislative Action.
Mr. Zunguze said that the other item that he wanted to share with the Commission was the concerns regarding the request by some Historic Landmark Commission members to discuss the tennis bubble issue at Liberty Park. He stated that an appeal has been filed and the Planning Division is going forth with that process to have the appeal heard by the Board of Adjustment. He hoped that all the members of the Commission had received a copy of the letter explaining the Division's position on the tennis bubble. Mr. Zunguze stated that since then additional information has appeared. He said that a number of the members of the Historic Landmark Commission who served on the Architectural Subcommittee reviewed that matter in January of 2003 in a subcommittee meeting. Mr. Zunguze added that Staff concurred with the perspective of the subcommittee members that the tennis bubble could be reviewed by Staff.
Mr. Zunguze said that the Board of Adjustment will hear that appeal in January 2005. He pointed out that if the Board of Adjustment looks at the matter differently, the tennis bubble would go to the Historic Landmark Commission for review. Mr. Zunguze stated that that was where things stood at this point as far as the tennis bubble project is concerned. He asked if the Commission had any questions.
Mr. Parvaz stated that Mr. Zunguze's letter regarding the tennis bubble, mentioned that if a member of the Commission responded to the applicant, who filed the appeal, it would constitute a conflict of interest. He asked what kind of conflict of interest the members would have.
Mr. Zunguze said, "I don't think my letter specifically addressed a conflict of interest. What I was sharing with you was that you have to remember that you are part of a body that opines and gives judgment on these issues and typically you don't want to do that prior to receiving all of the information. So what I was cautioning you about is you talking with an applicant or a person who has an interest in the project outside the scope of this meeting because then what you would be obtaining is information that is not complete. When you sit as a body to hear a presentation from both sides, pros and cons, and then render a judgment, you don't want to have meetings (conversations) with persons outside this body about a specific project that you would be reviewing." He said that any member of the Commission would be free to attend the Board of Adjustment meeting and voice an opinion whether or not the process was appropriate.
Mr. Zunguze continued by saying, "I do not think it is appropriate for you to express your opinions whether or not the project should be approved in that location, just in case that the matter comes back to you. You have to listen to all the facts and then render a judgment."
A discussion pursued. Mr. Parvaz said that he was sorry but he could not remember reviewing the tennis bubble proposal in an Architectural Subcommittee meeting.
Ms. Rowland said that items used to go to the Architectural Subcommittee then come to the full Commission for review. Mr. Zunguze stated that since then that process has been corrected. He added that items come to the full Commission, then to the Architectural Committee if the Commission directs that procedure.
Mr. Parvaz mentioned that in the previous subcommittee process, the full Commission was not always aware of projects that went to the Architectural Subcommittee. He also said that he understood the concerns Mr. Zunguze had.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired what the appeal is based on and the date of the Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Zunguze said that the appeal is based on the process; the fact that the project was not reviewed by the full Commission. Ms. Giraud said that the Board of Adjustment will hear the appeal on January 24, 2005 at 5:30P.M. in Room 326.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Ashdown moved to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2004 meeting. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Ms. White abstained. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 029-04. at 668 North 200 West. by Phyllis C. Doxford. requesting permission to install vinyl siding to replace existing steel siding; replace the existing horizontal slider and single-hung windows with vinyl windows of the same style; and replace the front porch door on her house. This is an appeal of an administrative decision. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Everett Joyce 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.
The following is an overview of the project:
Ms. Phyllis C. Doxford is requesting permission to install vinyl siding to replace existing steel siding; replace existing aluminum horizontal slider windows and single hung windows with vinyl windows of the same style; replace the front porch door; and install vinyl cladding on three rafter ends on her house at 668 North 200 West. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District and is zoned SR-1. The property owner has a bid proposal for the work from K-Designers.
The applicant proposed to replace the existing steel siding on a porch enclosure that has existed for over forty years. The porch enclosure walls are not original building surfaces. The portion of the porch enclosure wall o the gable end covers the original building material. These materials were placed on the structure prior to 1964.
An administrative request to approve the vinyl siding and windows was requested by Mr. Tom McKean of K Designers. The Planning Staff referred the administrative approval request to the Historic Landmark Commission due to the complexity of the application, the past caution that the Historic Landmark Commission has used when reviewing the application of vinyl siding, and the need for preservation consultation. Staff determined that if the applicant used Hardiboard instead of vinyl siding, the request could be approved administratively. Regarding the replacement of the slider windows, Staff has recommended to the applicant's representative that rather than replace the existing horizontal slider windows with vinyl windows of the same style, that the applicant replace the horizontal sliders with casement windows to match the original pattern on the front elevation of the Bungalow. Staff also suggested that single- or double-hung windows could be approved administratively, as this style of window is consistent with those found on Craftsman-style Bungalows. The property owner has decided to proceed with her original request, in hopes of obtaining approval from the Historic Landmark Commission.
Staff was reluctant to approve the proposed request, and presented alternatives cited above to the applicant for the following reasons:
Although the house is determined to be contributing in the Capitol Hill Historic District in two surveys, the porch was enclosed at least forty years ago, substantially altering the architectural integrity of the house. The Historic Landmark Commission and Staff have not made it a practice to force owners to return a property to an earlier appearance if that material or element has been removed or obscured. Thus, the Staff and the Historic Landmark Commission must determine to what extent the owner should mitigate the incompatible alterations to her house while making the house viable for her use and adhering to the requirements of the zoning ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. The Staff and Historic Landmark Commission have found Hardiboard an acceptable substitute material for wood siding because it lends itself to the crisp detailing found in wood products. Hardiboard is made, in part, from a wood by-product. It is more "maintenance friendly" than wood siding.
Part of the existing steel siding probably covers historic materials (the gable end); the rest of the steel siding was used to enclose the void of the porch. Therefore, an outright denial by Staff to use vinyl siding based on Chapter 21A.34.020(G)(1O)(a)- the prohibition to place vinyl siding on original or historic material- does not pertain to the entire wall surface of the porch.
Slider windows are not a window configuration consistent with Craftsman Bungalows. However, Staff determined that based upon window styles commonly associated with this style, single-, double-hung, or casement windows would be compatible with the remaining character-defining features of the historic building.
The home is setback approximately 75 feet from the street and 40 feet from the public sidewalk. All of the proposed work is on the front elevation related to the existing porch enclosure.
Contributing statue of the structure.
According to historic survey information compiled in 1980 by the Utah State Historical Society, this single dwelling house was constructed in 1917. The survey form notes that major alterations had occurred over the years. This property is a one-and-one-half story gable-roofed Craftsman Bungalow. The eaves were covered with aluminum and the recessed front porch has been enclosed with aluminum "clapboard" siding. The rafter ends have also been wrapped with aluminum or a substitute material. At the time of the 1980 survey, the surveyor considered the front porch enclosure as a major alteration; however, the house was classified as a contributing building. This contributing status was affirmed by consultant, Korral Broschinsky, who conducted a windshield survey of the Capitol Hill Historic District in 2000, as part of her contract to prepare a National Register nomination for the Capitol Hill Boundary Extension. The applicant proposes to undertake the following work:
1. Replace the steel siding on the porch enclosure with vinyl siding. The sales agreement states that a scallop design will be used in the gable end.
2. Replace the aluminum sliding window on the porch enclosure with a vinyl window of similar configuration.
3. Replace the two one-over-one windows on either side of the door with similar windows.
4. Leave the metal soffit and fascia as installed but clad three rafter ends on the front gable with vinyl.
5. Replace the existing metal door with a metal door with a frosted glass pattern.
A written explanation is provided on the application request attached to the staff report. The applicant states that the porch has been enclosed with aluminum for the past 40 years. Because of her age, she cannot maintain surfaces that need painting and would like the lower maintenance of vinyl siding.
Historic Landmark Commission policy regarding synthetic siding.
The Historic Landmark Commission has opposed synthetic siding for many years. In 1980, the Commission adopted the following policy regarding the use of artificial materials: The use of an artificial material in a building which is listed on the City Register (either as a landmark site or as part of an historic district) shall not be approved unless it is proven necessary for the preservation of the building.
The policy lists the artificial materials addressed by the Commission, and includes vinyl and aluminum siding. In August 1994, the Commission discussed establishing a new policy concerning the use of synthetic siding but decided to address the issue in the new city-wide zoning ordinance. Commission Members described the potential problems of synthetic siding and cited several reasons for their opposition to the application of synthetic siding:
It obscures original material or material that defines the character of the house. Although siding salesperson's claim that “it looks like wood" in reality, it does not lend itself to the precise shaping that wood does, and does not have the texture of wood.
Contrary to the claims made by synthetic siding companies, aluminum and vinyl siding are not maintenance and problem-free. Many homeowners believe the application of siding will save them from painting and ongoing maintenance but in fact, other problems occur that can be more costly and are unattractive. Vinyl and aluminum have their own maintenance headaches. Exposure to sunlight causes the pigments used in vinyl (and in the coatings applied to aluminum) to fade over time. Aluminum is easily dented, and vinyl can crack when aged, or in cold weather. All siding is susceptible to damage from storm, fire, and vandalism; aluminum and vinyl are not as easily repaired as wood in these cases.
The rewritten Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, adopted in April 1995, addresses the synthetic siding issue on contributing or landmark site structures in Section 21A.34.020(G}(10).
Past Historic Landmark Commission decisions regarding the use of vinyl siding.
From approximately 1992 to 1994, the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed several cases regarding the application of synthetic siding to contributing structure in the historic districts. All of the cases addressed the issue of siding soffit, fascia, and other trim. These cases involved the obscuring of details that in their current state, were character-defining features that had not been in appropriately altered to mar the architectural integrity of the dwelling. All of the cases were denied; the dates and addresses are listed in a table in the staff report.
In 1999, the Historic Landmark Commission considered a case in which synthetic siding was installed on a building without a permit. In that case, heard in October of 1999, the Commission required removal of aluminum fascia and soffit installed on an apartment building, but allowed the vinyl siding installed on the back porches of the building to remain because the siding was installed on a non-historic, non-contributing portion of the building.
On May 16, 2001, the Historic Landmark Commission up held Staff's recommendation to allow Hardiboard or a synthetic stucco system in lieu of vinyl siding that had been installed without permits at 523 East 800 South. Although the proposal differs from this case, Staff finds that the case is relevant because the original features of the house (wood siding) had been obscured by asbestos shingles that were not of the historic period. The Historic Landmark Commission up held Staff's recommendation that while replacing the missing wood cladding would be the preferable option, the proposals for stucco or Hardiboard would be compatible with the size and scale of the building.
Ms. Giraud stated that the following requirements in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance justifies the applicants' request needs based on Chapter 21A.34.020(G). Ms. Giraud indicated that Staff determined that the following standards are pertinent to this application:
G. 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:
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: Salt Lake City historic survey records and Salt Lake County records indicate that the existing porch enclosure was constructed prior to 1964. Enclosing the porch has altered significant features and spaces of the Bungalow's front elevation, and this enclosure, along with the associated siding, windows, door and wrapped rafter ends, has compromised the historic character of the property. Restoring the historic integrity of the Bungalow would require removal of the porch enclosure, but as stated earlier, the Staff and Historic Landmark Commission have not required owners to completely reverse existing incompatible alterations when trying to update or improve the alteration.
Within the context of the incompatible character created by the porch enclosure, the vinyl siding can be construed as not altering the features and spaces of the swelling. The siding is horizontal and of the same dimension that would have been associated with wood siding used on a Craftsman Bungalow.
Staff's findings of fact: The proposed application complies with this standard in that it does not remove historic materials and does not alter features beyond those already modified prior to 1964. The applicant meets this standard.
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 discussion: Removal of the existing porch enclosure material (metal), and replacing it with another synthetic material (vinyl) does not create a false sense of history; it continues the alteration of the building that occurred prior to 1964.
The use of a scallop pattern in the gable end does create a false sense of history. Scallop-pattern siding is consistent with Victorian-era styles, not Craftsman Bungalow styles.
Staff does not consider its recommendation to the applicant to use different window types in lieu of a slider and a different door than proposed as conjectural, based upon the following text from the Guidelines for Rehabilitation Historic Buildings in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. This document provides the following advice when facing design issues involving missing historic or original features:
When an important architectural feature is missing, its recovery is always recommended in the guidelines as the first or preferred course of action. Thus, if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exists so that the feature may be accurately reproduced, and if it is desirable to re-establish the feature as part of the building's historical appearance, then designing and constructing a new feature based on such information is appropriate.
However, a second acceptable option for the replacement feature is a new design that is compatible with the remaining character-defining features of the historic building. The new design should always take into account the size, scale, and material of the historic building itself and, most importantly, should be clearly differentiated so that a false historical appearance is not created.
Continuing to use slider windows and a frosted-glass door with an ornate floral pattern, is continuing the alteration of a feature not characteristic of a Craftsman Bungalow. One-over-one, single-and double-hung windows, as well as casement windows, are identified in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City as appropriate for Craftsman Bungalows. The guidelines also address appropriate doors for Craftsman Bungalows and state that "Doors with Victorian era elements, such as ovals or frosted glass, are not in keeping with the Bungalow style."
Staff's findings of fact: The proposed vinyl siding complies with this standard to the extent that its application would not create a false sense of history. The proposal by Staff for different windows and a door that is consistent with the Craftsman style, other than proposed, is not conjectural, as this would reinforce the home's historic character.
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Staff's discussion: The previous work completed was performed prior to 1964 and has been a modification to the building for over 40 years. Staff does not know exactly when the alterations were made, but does not consider that the alterations associated with this house to have acquired historic significance in its own right.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City address this issue:
2.3 Consider removing later covering materials that have not achieved historic significance. Staff's findings of fact: This standard does not apply in this case. Staff does not know when the existing porch enclosure occurred, and cannot apply the usual benchmark of fifty years to begin assessing if the alterations have achieved historic significance in its own right.
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
Staff's discussion: The metal siding, windows, and existing door on the porch enclosure are not character-defining features of the property; in fact, they detract from the home's identity as a Craftsman Bungalow.
Staff's findings of fact: The existing finishes of the porch enclosure are not character-defining features of the historic property. The application complies with this standard in that the replacement of existing synthetic materials with another synthetic material does not remove finishes or construction techniques that characterize this historic property.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material shall 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.
Staff's discussion: The applicant is proposing these alterations because she believes that the existing materials and features have deteriorated. The new material proposed for installation does not match the existing materials in composition, design, or texture. The proposed vinyl siding differs from steel in its composition; its design differs in that it has a narrower reveal than the original metal material; and its texture will have an artificial wood grain texture rather than the smooth finish of the steel siding. It will also differ from the qualities afforded by wood. However, as stated earlier, the proposed vinyl siding, as a replacement for an incompatible material on an incompatible alteration undertaken before the designation of the Capitol Hill Historic District, can be considered an acceptable replacement for the steel siding. It shares some qualities associated with wood siding, which would be in keeping with the Craftsman style: it is horizontal, it mimics clapboard siding, and the dimension of the lap is similar. The use of scallop-pattern shingles in the gable end would be an exception to the adherence to the Craftsman style.
Regarding the replacement of the door and the slider windows, neither the existing windows nor the door are original or in keeping with the character of the Craftsman Bungalow style. Staff has determined that other window and door styles would be in keeping with the visual qualities associated with this style.
Staff's findings of fact: In terms of replacing the metal siding with vinyl, the applicant meets this standard because the replacement siding is visually comparable. The applicant does not meet this standard in terms of the proposed windows and doors.
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.;
Staff's discussion: The proposed alterations do not destroy significant cultural, historic, architectural or archaeological material, with the exception of the original material under the gable end. Information regarding the extent of the deterioration of original material under the gable end was unavailable to Staff.
The vinyl replacement siding is compatible with the character of the house. The replacement slider window is incompatible with the character of the property, as it is not associated with the Craftsman Bungalow style. The proposed door with its frosted, floral pattern is also incompatible with the character of the Craftsman style. Historically, Prairie and Craftsman-style Bungalows had doors with simple patterns, no frosted glass, and angular, rather than geometric ornamentation in the glazing, if the glazing had ornamentation at all. The proposed door would be more in keeping with a Victorian era style of house, rather than a Bungalow style associated with simplicity of glazing and design.
The Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City addresses doors:
4.4 When replacing a door, use materials that use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the house.
The Design Guidelines further points out in the style section pertaining to Bungalows that "Doors with Victorian-era elements, such as ovals or frosted glass, are not in keeping with the Bungalow style."
Staff's findings of fact: The application for new siding replacement windows and the door does not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural, or archaeological material. The use of vinyl siding as a replacement material in the context of an existing incompatible alteration is in character with the property. The configuration of the existing windows (sliders) is not consistent with the character of this dwelling. The proposed door is also not compatible with the Bungalow style and type of the house due to the ornate design of the glass and it's frosted glazing. The design of the proposed slider window and the door does not meet this standard.
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: All of the proposed work is reversible, as is the potential to reverse the porch enclosure. However, the proposed material is comparable with the existing porch enclosure material and would not deter future restoration of an open porch. The proposed synthetic siding is compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the existing enclosure. Because the porch is easily identified as a later alteration to the house, all of the components associated with it are differentiated from the original form of the house. The proposed siding is a compatible architectural feature for the property in its current condition. The proposed door and slider windows do not reinforce the Craftsman Bungalow qualities of the property.
Staff's findings of fact: The applicant complies with the character of the contemporary porch enclosure in terms of the siding, but not the proposed door or slider window.
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;
Staff's discussion: As discussed previously in this staff report, the Historic Landmark Commission confronted the issue of synthetic materials in 1994. In August 1994, the Commission discussed establishing a new policy concerning the use of synthetic siding, but decided to address the issue in the new, city-wide zoning ordinance. The ordinance addresses the issue of synthetic siding on contributing structures or landmark sites in this section. The intent of this statement is to disallow synthetic siding on contributing structures. The ordinance clearly states that synthetic siding is not allowed on original or historic materials, such as in the case of the gable on this building. The synthetic materials on the porch enclosure itself are not original or historic materials.
The following Design Guidelines pertains to this standard:
2.2 Covering original building materials with new materials is not allowed. Vinyl or aluminum siding is prohibited on historic buildings, as well as any other imitation siding material that may be designed to look like wood siding but that is fabricated from other materials.
The metal siding is not an original material, and as far as the Staff has been able to determine, a historic material. The metal siding and porch enclosure were undertaken long before the Capitol Hill historic District was designated.
The rafter ends are original features of the house. They are closely aligned with the Craftsman Bungalow style. They have been wrapped in a metal material. Removing the existing wrap and recladding them with vinyl would violate this section of the ordinance. From conversations between Staff and the owner, Staff finds it safe to assume that if the existing metal were removed from the rafter ends and the Historic Landmark Commission prohibited vinyl, the owner would not be able to maintain the condition of the rafter ends in their original wood condition. Therefore, Staff believes that the safest condition for the rafter ends is to keep them in their current cladding and deny the application of vinyl to them, in accordance with the ordinance.
Staff's findings of fact: The application complies with this standard because, with the exception of the gable end, the applicant is not proposing to apply vinyl siding to original or historic material. Staff does not know the condition of the material under the metal siding in the gable end, and because Staff has determined throughout this report that the use of vinyl siding in this instance is acceptable, Staff does not see how allowing vinyl on the walls of the enclosure while disallowing it in the gable ends would further the preservation or viability of this dwelling or the neighborhood. Staff finds that, with the exception of the brackets, the applicant meets this standard.
Mr. Joyce offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the application requesting to replace the metal siding with horizontal, clapboard-like vinyl siding for the following reasons: 1) The application of vinyl siding is, for the most part, not being applied to historic or original materials to the best of Staff's knowledge; 2) The siding is being applied to a building element that in itself diminishes the historic quality of the property. Reversing the porch enclosure is not part of this application, and thus the Historic Landmark Commission must consider what it is in the best interest of this property given a less than ideal situation; and 3) The vinyl siding is replacing a material that would not be allowed since the designation of the Capitol Hill Historic District in 1984, but is more in keeping with the character of the house as a Craftsman Bungalow.
The Planning Staff does not recommend that the Historic Landmark Commission approve vinyl siding with a scallop pattern in the gable end, as this is not consistent with the pattern of the original siding, nor of the Craftsman Bungalow style.
The Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission deny the request to cover the rafter ends with vinyl siding, as this would be covering an original feature with synthetic material. The Planning Staff recommends that the owner keep the rafter ends in their current state.
The Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission deny the application requesting to replace the existing metal door with that proposed in the application, because frosted glass and ornate floral patterns are not consistent with the character of the Craftsman Bungalow style and the Capitol Hill Historic District. Should the applicant present a door more in keeping with the Craftsman style, Staff requests that the Historic Landmark Commission direct Staff to approve the door administratively.
"The Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission deny the application requesting to replace the existing slider window with a vinyl slider window, as this configuration of window is not consistent with the Craftsman style. Windows such as one-and-one-half over-one, double- or single-hung, or casements, or other alternatives explored by the applicant and not mentioned in this report, would reinforce the Craftsman style, not diminish it, as the current slider does. Should the applicant present windows more
in keeping with the Craftsman style, the Staff requests that the Historic Landmark Commission direct Staff to approve the windows administratively.
"The Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposed single-hung windows to replace those on either side of the door, as single-hung windows are compatible with the Craftsman Bungalow style."
Ms. Giraud stated that these cases were always challenging because the Commission and Staff is not dealing with a situation where someone is reversing actions that happen prior to the district being established, which would bring the house more in compliance with its original look and its historic integrity. She added that the Commission was faced with a situation that is not the perfect preservation solution and yet the house needs to be viable for the owner. Ms. Giraud said that Staff felt that those were some of the compelling reasons why Staff wanted the proposal referred to the Commission. She said that this was a very complicated case because the Commission has always been cautious about vinyl siding. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the Commission would not want to "open the door" for vinyl siding on contributing structures that maintained a high degree of historic integrity. She continued by saying that at the same time, Staff believed that this was a case where vinyl siding could be warranted. Ms. Giraud indicated that the Staff report was structured with findings of fact to give the Commission the means to approve the proposal without "opening the door'' on vinyl in other districts in the city where preservation would be in the home owner's best interest.
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Parvaz wanted to know what kind of precedence the Commission would be setting for the future to allow vinyl siding to cover an existing non-historic material. Ms. Giraud pointed out that the owner does not know when the steel siding was installed. She said that was the reason why the Staff report carefully outlined the reasons for recommending that the vinyl siding to be allowed in this case without setting a precedence that would allow it on contributing structures where buildings maintained a high degree of integrity. Mr. Parvaz said that he believed that if the Commission approves the proposal, the reasons for approval would be explicit enough so that it would not open the door to future cases.
There was some discussion regarding the gable ends. Ms. Giraud said that the ordinance states that vinyl siding cannot be applied to original or historic materials. Ms. Giraud said that Staff has to assume that the steel siding is not historic and the owner does not know what is underneath the gable, so Staff does not believe that it would be in anyone's best interest if vinyl could be used on the portion of the wall that is underneath the gables. She pointed out that the owner will either have to live with the condition of the material underneath the steel siding once it is removed off the gables, replicate the material that was applied originally, or keep the steel siding in place. Ms. Giraud added that there are two vastly different materials on the same wall surface. Ms. Mickelsen said that it was difficult to distinguish in the photographs.
Ms. Rowland inquired how the project came to the attention of Staff. Mr. Joyce said that the applicant applied for a building permit and was sent to Planning for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness which was denied; therefore, the application had to go through the Historic Landmark Commission process. Ms. Rowland said that she was happy to know that the process was working.
Ms. Mickelsen said she could not find the information about the fish scale shingles proposed for the gable end. Ms. Giraud said that the information was found in the sales agreement near the end of the Staff report, "Design work to be added to front gable area scalloped in white." Ms. Giraud stated that Staff thought that design would be too conjectural of an image, especially when the material being replaced was a simple horizontal clapper board.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Phyllis Doxford, the applicant, and her contractor, Mr. Tom McKean, were present. Ms. Doxford said that the house was originally built for and owned by her grandparents, her parents lived there, and now she has been living there for many years.
Ms. Doxford said that there was wood underneath the gables. Mr. McKean said that it could be seen because the bottom was not covered with the steel siding, only the sides. He mentioned that Staff recommended approval but he recognized that the Historic Landmark Commission had the final decision. Ms. Mickelsen said that was only a recommendation.
Ms. Doxford stated that the existing steel siding has oxidized and the color is coming off. She said that she did not care if the scallops on the gable were denied. However, she would like to have the proposed vinyl sliding windows and vinyl door with an oval shaped frosted glass window. Mr. McKean said that it was actually a steel door and not a vinyl door. Ms. Doxford pointed out that alternative door designs were also proposed.
Ms. Doxford said that her house is not an historic house because of the changes, which were made before the historic district was established. She added that the steel siding and the sliding windows have been on the house for at least forty years. Ms. Doxford said that people recognize her home by her windows. She pointed out that throughout the Staff report her home is referred to a Bungalow Craftsman style but because of being substantially altered the architectural integrity of the house has been lost. Ms. Doxford added that the only original part of the house in front is the rafters that protrude about two feet. She said that she wants as little upkeep as possible for her house because she was not able to do the repair work or the painting and upkeep.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by stating that he did not believe anyone was advocating that the windows be removed. He added that the replacement windows that the applicant is proposing are a style incongruous with an historic district. He asked the applicant about alternative windows. Ms. Doxford stated that she would like to keep the same style of windows, but an updated version. She said that the existing windows were not serviceable and do not keep out the cold. Mr. Ashdown indicated that the applicant was replacing the windows with different looking windows anyway. Ms. Doxford said that she is replacing the sliders with a better sliding window. Mr. Ashdown inquired if the appearance was identical and Ms. Doxford said that they were. Mr. McKean said that is was possible to replace the window in front using the same window opening, but he could divide the front window in thirds. He noted that he could replace the sliding windows on the side with two double-hung windows in the same openings. Mr. McKean said that the front window would not look that much different, but it would be a better, cleaner, and a vertical appearance. He also said that he could make the sashes a little wider. Mr. Ashdown asked about the proposed scallop (fish scale) pattern in the gable. Mr. McKean said that the fish scale design was made in a vinyl material which seems to be very popular. Ms. Doxford said again that she was not opposed to using something else in the gable.
• Ms. Giraud asked if a casement window could be installed rather than sliders. Mr. McKean said that a casement window could be used but it would cost a lot more money. Ms. Doxford said that she was retired and living on a pension, so she had to watch her finances closely. He said that with the new windows divided in thirds, there would still be a large picture window in the middle. Ms. Giraud said that casement windows would be more consistent with a Craftsman style. She said that part of the problem with the sliders is that they are not consistent with the Craftsman style. Mr. Ashdown asked if the mullion size on the new windows would be the same as the old windows. Mr. McKean said they would be 1% to 2 % inches wider with the vinyl frame.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked about the windows by the door. Mr. McKean said that they would be hung windows. Ms. Mickelsen said that the vinyl would be white and asked about the brick. Ms. Doxford said that the brick would stay the same. Mr. McKean indicated that the vinyl frame looks more like the old wood sashes. Ms. Doxford pointed out that the house used to have a white front and wanted the current steel siding to be white, but then her mother chose the red color. She said that she "detested" the look of her house. Ms. Doxford circulated a photograph of the house before the steel siding was installed. When Mr. Fitzsimmons asked the applicant if she knew when the steel siding was installed, she said that she was not certain but at least forty years ago. Ms. Giraud also referred to the tax photograph which was included in the staff report. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the enclosed porch area. Ms. Doxford said that she has always had used it as a sun porch where it is a nice place to sit. Ms. Mickelsen asked how the rafters would be wrapped. Mr. McKean talked about a product that is a vinyl clad aluminum with a wood grain. He said that they would do a side mount and leave the bottom like it is; it would be consistent with the siding. Ms. Giraud suggested using a vinyl product for siding that does not have wood grain on it because that makes it look even more inauthentic than painted wood clabber. The cost of liquid siding was discussed which is very expensive.
• Mr. Parvaz asked if the applicant was planning to put an awning on the front. Ms. Doxford said that she did not know. She added that she did not think she would need one with the kind of windows she proposed. Ms. Doxford mentioned that there was an awning over the front door at one time, but the wind tore it off.
• Ms. White inquired if the applicant had considered tax credits and how that would affect the style of windows she could install. Ms. Doxford stated that she is "fighting" for the windows proposed because it is easier to see out the larger window. Mr. McKean said that the applicant wants the sliders and added that the new windows would be much more practical. Ms. Giraud stated that she did not believe tax credits would be available with what the applicant is proposing and the changes that had been made to the house.
• Mr. Ashdown asked about alternative designs for the front door. Mr. McKean pointed out several styles which were in a brochure and said that the applicant would choose one of the styles as an alternative. Ms. Giraud said that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City clearly state that an oval glass door is not a Craftsman style. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the style of door that was on the house originally. Ms. Doxford said that she did not know. Ms. Mickelsen suggested that the window should be an angular Frank Lloyd Write design rather than an oval which would be more appropriate.
The discussion took place regarding the features of a Craftsman Bungalow-style house and the changes that had been made to the subject building, and whether or not it could still be called a Craftsman Bungalow-style of house.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Ms. Victoria Gilbert, a resident in the neighborhood, stated that she supported the applicant trying to upgrade her home and applauded her for following the proper procedures. She said that she is a new resident of West Capitol Hill, which she said is the last affordable neighborhood in the city with close proximity to downtown and public transportation. Ms. Gilbert said that maybe it will be an incentive for more home owners to upgrade their homes.
Ms. Bonnie Mangold, a concerned resident, stated that she is one of the trustees for the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council. She said that the windows of the house are what "catch your eye" although it is negative attention. However, Ms. Mangold said that under the financial circumstances the applicant faces, she believes there is no better alternative than vinyl. She said that she believes the front window in three sections would look much better. Ms. Mangold said that most the residents in the neighborhood supported the changes the applicant was requesting, which in their minds are an improvement.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Mickelsen said that the Commission is probably not dealing with an historic structure in this case because of the modifications to the original structure. She said that the Commission could offer the applicant some leeway in this case. A discussion took place regarding this issue.
Mr. Ashdown inquired if there are portions of the ordinance that deal with replacement of non-historic materials. Ms. Giraud said there was not, only replacement of original or historic materials. Mr. Ashdown stated that he believes what the applicant is proposing to do would be beneficial to the house; the applicant would be replacing non-historic materials. He said that the applicant did not have any intention of restoring the home to the original status, but the next owner might be interested in doing that.
Ms. Giraud said that findings would have to be made supporting the Commission's decision if the proposal is approved because the house is listed at contributing in two separate surveys. She added that the Commission has to be careful so "doors would not be opened" for future cases. Ms. Giraud suggested that one finding would be that the house has already undergone all the alterations and the brackets would still be preserved and maintained if a future home owner would want to restore the house.
Ms. Mickelsen entertained a motion.
Motion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved in Case No. 029-04, at 668 North 200 West, that the Historic Landmark Commission accept the Planning Staff's findings of fact and recommendation to approve the application requesting to replace metal siding with horizontal vinyl siding for the reasons stated in the Staff report, which would include the brackets (rafters). The brackets would still be intact and ready for restoration in the future. The brackets are a minor detail compared to the context of the changes that have already occurred to the house. In the future, if the vinyl siding is removed and the porch is restored to original, the brackets would become a character-defining detail. The vinyl siding would be replacing non-historic materials. The Historic Landmark Commission does not recommend using the scallop pattern shingles on the gable end. Further, the Historic Landmark Commission's approval also includes that an alternate door, to the one that was originally proposed, be selected from the samples submitted at this meeting and be approved by Staff, and that the large front window would remain one window but divided into three equal sections with a three-lite vinyl sliding window. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Lew asked if the Documentation Committee could meet right after the meeting to review the documentation of the properties at 600 North and 300 West.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ash moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. White seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 5:30 P.M.