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, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Kevin LoPiccolo, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chairperson, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen, Chairperson. David Fitzsimmons and Lee White were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Kevin LoPiccolo, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary.
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. Mr. Simonsen asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off so there will be no disruption during the meeting.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance with 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.
Mr. Simonsen 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
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. As there were no remarks, Mr. Simonsen closed the meeting to public comments and the Commission proceeded with the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
Mr. Zunguze stated that he had three items he wanted to discuss. He said that the first item would be a report of the action taken by the Board of Adjustment regarding the tennis bubble at Liberty Park. Mr. Zunguze stated the Commissioners were aware that an appeal was made to the Board of Adjustment contesting the Administrative review authority of staff regarding the approval of the tennis bubble in Liberty Park. Liberty Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site. He indicated that the Board of Adjustment affirmed the position taken by staff, noting that when taken in the context of the sum total of all the activities occurring on that landmark site, the alterations relating to the tennis bubble were minor. Mr. Zunguze said that from that sense, staff took the appropriate action. He noted that from staff's standpoint, the matter is now closed and the next appeal's process would be in district court.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the correspondence between him and Mr. Parvaz and said that he appreciated the interaction. He said that staff would continue to make Administrative calls when it is appropriate. Mr. Zunguze noted that by ordinance, staff has some authority to exercise and staff should do that and whenever someone has a problem with actions that staff may take, there are appropriate remedies which the City has in place for anyone to pursue. He added that, equally, the Historic Landmark Commission has a role to play that is also defined by ordinance. Mr. Zunguze stated that errors will be made along the way, that should be expected from time to time, but staff and the Commission always try to act according to the City's ordinances. He said that to do otherwise would undermine the whole process of preservation.
Mr. Zunguze asked if the Commission had any questions.
Mr. Parvaz said that it is very confusing regarding the authority that the staff has in approving cases. He said that the issues were not clear in the case of the tennis bubble. Mr. Parvaz said that there were questions and issues that should be discussed. A discussion took place regarding the decision behind the tennis bubble and what constituted a temporary structure.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the ordinance is clear as to what the Historic Landmark Commission handles and what the staff handles. The discussion continued with much interaction between some members of the Commission and Mr. Zunguze.
In conclusion on this matter, Mr. Simonsen suggested that the Commission schedule a time on an agenda to discuss such topics as the authority of both staff and the Commission and other pertinent subjects. Mr. Zunguze cautioned that the Commission should not make the tennis bubble the topic of discussion, but to use the time wisely. He said that every decision that the staff makes or the Commission makes is always a judgment call. However, the ordinance has designated appropriate levels of review and approval for both staff and the Commission.
Mr. Zunguze said that the second item he would like to discuss is the Legislative Action, which is scheduled before the City Council on Tuesday, February 8, 2005. He referred to a copy of the revised Power Point presentation that was provided to each member of the Commission. Mr. Zunguze said that he would be meeting with the Historic Landmark Commission's Chair and Vice Chair to get a sense of what additional issues should be discussed with the City Council. He mentioned that the Chair and Vice Chair will be given time to address the City Council. Mr. Zunguze said that he believed this would be a good opportunity to discuss the importance of preservation issues from the Commission's perspective.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any guidelines for the discussion. Mr. Zunguze said that from staff's standpoint, there are two major issues to take before the City Council: the importance of a preservation plan in the city; and finding the resources to do surveys in historic districts and how they would benefit the city.
Mr. Zunguze noted that the third item he wanted to report related to the changes that are being made in the Planning Division. He said that when he came on board, one of the things that were problematic for him was the inability to function in pressure situations and not being able to deal with unscheduled issues. He said that the main problem was that there was no flexibility in assignments because of the way the office was structured with staff set in specialty areas. Mr. Zunguze also noted that there was a fairness issue regarding the work load due to the Community Council system because some planners were having to go to 8 or 10 extra meetings a month while others, who were assigned to communities that were not as active, would not be required to go to any extra meetings. He added that this situation was slowly impacting morale in the office.
Mr. Zunguze said that Phase I was to do away with the Community Council/Planner system and put the managers in the Planning Division in the position of being liaisons between the Community Council and staff. He said that with the change, the planners would have the ability to work on any issue across the board giving the planners the opportunity to expand their knowledge and abilities. Mr. Zunguze said that most planners were using this opportunity as a means to grow, professionally. He indicated that this system was put in place last year.
Mr. Zunguze prepared a Power Point presentation, which showed a new organizational chart depicting the responsibilities of each staff member. He said that the change in the system would provide more support for preservation and zoning administration. Mr. Zunguze believed one of the keys was to combine preservation and zoning together because of the impact zoning has on preservation. He fully explained in detail some of the problems that occurred relative to zoning designations in historic districts.
Mr. Zunguze pointed out that Mr. Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Director, had been shifted away from preservation and was replaced by Mr. Brent Wilde, who is also a Deputy Director, aided by Mr. Kevin LoPiccolo, Zoning Administrator. After a question by one of the members of the Commission related to issues of enforcement, Mr. Zunguze said that Mr. Wheelwright, Mr. Wilde, and Mr. LoPiccolo will be meeting together to come up with ideas on how to deal with enforcement issues and the best way enforcement should be implemented.
There was more discussion on this matter during the Power Point presentation.
Mr. Zunguze also talked about reducing the size of the Historic Landmark Commission from 15 to a group of 11 and added that this would take a change in the zoning ordinance. He pointed out the need for attendance at the Historic Landmark Commission meetings, since there would only be one meeting a month.
Ms. Giraud thanked Ms. Rowland for continuing to serve beyond her expiration date until a replacement could be appointed. She said that Paula Carl had been interviewed and approved by the City Council.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Ashdown moved to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2004 meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen and Ms. Heid abstained. Mr. Fitzsimmons, and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 001-05. at 726 E. Sixth Avenue. by Kevin Blalock. requesting approval to construct a second story addition on the house. which is a non-contributing structure. at this location. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Janice 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.
The following is an overview of the project:
The applicant, Kevin Blalock, is requesting approval to construct a second story addition to an existing single story house at 726 E. Sixth Avenue. The house is located in the Avenues Historic District, which was locally designated as a historic district in March of 1978. The base zoning of the property is SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential, the purpose of which is “to maintain the unique character of older, predominantly single-family neighborhoods that display a variety of yard, lot sizes and bulk characteristics.” The zone allows single-family and twin homes as permitted uses.
The subject property consists of a one-story home with an attached carport. The applicant proposes to remove the existing roof structure of the house and construct a new full second story addition on the existing cement masonry unit (CMU) walls of the building. The flat roof form of the original building would be retained as part of the new construction and the existing carport enclosed. The applicant proposes the following materials for the building:
• Prodema external cladding for the addition - high density panels (4' x 8') composed of a resin bonded cellulose fiber core faced with a natural wood veneer that has been coated with an acrylic protective finish.
• Architectural covering and accents - pre-finished ribbed metal panels.
• Roofing material - w lite roof membrane.
• Windows- Pella “Architect Series” aluminum clad wood windows.
• Garage door- aluminum.
Built in 1963, the existing building has not achieved historic significance. It can be considered a noncontributing building because of its age (less than 50 years old). The standards for the issuance of a Certificated of Appropriateness involving alterations to a noncontributing structure and the design guidelines for new construction apply to this request.
Ms. Lew stated that all proposed work must comply with height, yard and bulk requirements of the SR-1 zoning district. It should be noted that a non-complying lot as to lot area or lot frontage that was in legal existence prior to April 12, 1995, shall be considered a legal complying lot.
Ms. Lew referred to the pertinent sections in Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Section 21A.34.020 H Historic Preservation Overlay District:
H. Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the historic landmark commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the historic landmark commission and city council and is in the best interest of the city.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staffs discussion: Within the Avenues District, a range of architectural styles exists, which results in a variety of building forms. Depending on the style, some are simple rectangles, with details applied; others are more complex, asymmetrical forms composed of several subordinate masses. The surrounding buildings of the subject property are shown on the panoramic photograph attached to this staff report. The buildings on this block of Sixth Avenue present a typical range of styles, types and materials. To the west, is a flat-roofed Victorian duplex with a wide gabled porch tacked onto the front porch. Its roof form was common for multi-family structures of this period. To the east, is a World War 11-era cottage. Several bungalows also are located on this block.
The size and mass of the home with the proposed addition is similar to the residential structures found in this neighborhood and throughout the Avenues District. It is rectangular in shape, with a 25' x 60' footprint. The primary facade is also similar in height (approx. 22') to that of existing structures in the district and compatible with surrounding buildings. The Commission's design guidelines offer the following guidance on the scale and form of compatible new construction.
Standards for New Construction:
11.4 Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale. A new building may convey a sense of human scale by employing techniques such as these:
- Using building materials that are of traditional dimensions.
- Providing a one-story porch that is similar to that seen traditionally.
- Using a building mass that is similar in size to those seen traditionally.
- Using a solid-to-void that is similar to that seen traditionally, and using window openings that are similar in size to those seen traditionally.
11.5 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block. Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to buildings seen traditionally.
11.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block. The front shall include a one-story element, such as a porch. The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than those of typical historic structures in the block. A single wall plane should not
exceed the typical maximum facade width in the district.
11.7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district. This is an important standard which should be met in all projects.
11.8 The back side of a building may be taller than the established norm if the change in scale will not be perceived from public ways.
11.9 Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings. If a building would be wider overall than structures seen historically, the facade should be divided into subordinate planes that are similar in width to those of the context.
11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block. Simple rectangular solids are typically appropriate.
11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Visually, the roof is the single most important element in an overall building form. Gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms in most residential areas. Shed roofs are appropriate for some additions. Roof pitches should be 6:12 or greater. Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context. They are appropriate for multiple apartment buildings, duplexes, and fourplexes. In commercial areas, a wider variety of roof forms may occur.
11.13 Design overall facade proportions to be similar to those of historic buildings in the neighborhood. The “overall proportion” is the ratio of the width to height of the building, especially the front facade. See the discussions of individual districts and of typical historic building styles for more details about facade proportions.
Design Standards for the Avenues Historic District:
13.8 Design new buildings to be similar in scale to the scale that was seen traditionally on the block. Historically, most houses in the Avenues appeared to have a height of one, one-and-one half or two stories. Front facades should appear similar in height to those seen historically in the block. Taller portions should be setback farther on the lot. Story heights should appear similar to those seen historically. Use architectural details to convey a sense of the traditional scale of the block.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed building is compatible in height, width and scale with other buildings on the block and within the district. The proportion of the principle facade is compatible with the surrounding primary structures. The proposed roof shape is not a typical roof form historically used for a single family home, but it is consistent with the original building, and will be recognizable as a contemporary design element of the house. Given the eclectic architectural development of this neighborhood and the range of shapes found historically, the house form fits into the overall character of the neighborhood.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The applicant proposes to maintain the exterior of the first story of the building, including the primary materials, most window openings, and front entrance. The roof form and overhanging eaves would be duplicated on the new addition. The proportion of openings and the related rhythm of solids to voids on the existing structure are unusual for the district because they are not associated with the Avenues period of historic significance. The fenestration pattern shown on the new second story, however, is more conventional, with regular placement of windows and consistency of window sizes and openings. Most individual window units have a vertical emphasis and are not excessively large.
Traditionally, the primary entrance for a house faced the street, and a porch helped define the entrance. Although not characterized by a traditional porch element, the front entry is emphasized since the garage wall plane has been recessed 14 feet from the front of the building. Thus, the visual appearance of an attached garage will be minimized by designing it to be a subordinate element of the front fa9ade. A second story terrace also helps break up the wall plane of the front of the building. Such treatment may be considered a modern interpretation of a traditional detail and conveys the fact that the house is a contemporary design.
The project is less compatible visually with the predominant materials used in the area, and thus the Commission and applicant should explore other options. The use of materials that will reinforce established material patterns in the neighborhood is preferred. Historically, masonry and wood materials characterized the Avenues District, and garages were simple wood or iron structures.
The applicant proposes to use a Prodema high density panel to clad the addition. The panels consist of a natural wood veneer facing that has been coated with an acrylic protective finish and is placed over a resin-bonded cellulose fiber core. The manufacture's brochure indicates that the Prodema product is specially designed to resist attacks by chemicals (anti-graffiti), requires little maintenance, and retains its appearance for many years.
It is important that the introduction of any new materials be carefully reviewed so that the integrity of genuine historic structures will not be compromised in the districts. The use of substitute siding materials on a building can be considered to be a contemporary interpretation of historic design elements, when the material conveys an appearance similar to traditional building materials. Other materials have been considered by the Commission as long as the scale, proportion, finish and texture reinforce existing characteristics. For example, a substitute wood siding material may be acceptable where the material conveys a similar lap dimension and crispness and uses similar trim elements to those found historically. Additionally, a substitute material should have an established track record in other applications where its durability and long-term performance have been demonstrated.
In this case, the applicant is proposing a material that is new to the Salt Lake City market, would be installed in large panels, and has an acrylic protective finish. Staff finds the use of such a material would be inconsistent with the design guidelines and incompatible in Salt Lake City's historic districts because of its texture, large modular pattern, and glossy finish. The design guidelines recommend the following with respect to the composition of principal facades.
Standards for New Construction:
11.10 Use a ratio of wall-to-window (solid to void) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district. Large surfaces of glass are inappropriate in residential structures. Divide large glass surfaces into smaller windows.
11.14 Keep the proportions of window and door openings similar to those of historic buildings in the area. This is an important design standard because these details strongly influence the compatibility of a building within its context. Large expanses of glass, either vertical or horizontal, are generally inappropriate on new buildings in the historic districts.
11.16 New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing. Alternative materials should appear similar in scale, proportion, texture and finish to those used historically. They also must have a proven durability in similar locations in this climate. Metal products are allowed for soffits and eaves only.
11.17 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those found historically along the street. These include windows, doors, and porches.
11.18 If they are to be used, design ornamental elements, such as brackets and porches to be in scale with similar historic features. Thin, fake brackets and strap work applied to the surface of a building are inappropriate uses of these traditional details.
11.19 Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged. New designs for window moldings and door surrounds, for example, can provide visual interest while helping to convey the fact that the building is new. Contemporary details for porch railings and columns are other examples. New soffit details and dormer designs a/so could be used to create interest while expressing a new, compatible style.
11.20 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. One should not replicate historic styles, because this blurs the distinction between old and new buildings, as well as making it more difficult to visually interpret the architectural evolution of the district. Interpretations of historic styles may be considered if they are subtly distinguishable as new.
11.21 Windows with vertical emphasis are encouraged. A general rule is that the height of the window should be twice the dimension of the width in most residential contexts. See a/so the discussions of the character of the relevant historic district and architectural styles.
11.22 Frame windows and doors in materials that appear similar in scale, proportion and character to those used traditionally in the neighborhood. Double-hung windows with traditional depth and trim are preferred in most districts. (See a/so the rehabilitation section on windows as well as the discussions of specific historic districts and relevant architectural styles.)
11.23 Windows shall be simple in shape. Odd window shapes such as octagons, circles, diamonds, etc. are discouraged.
Design Standards for the Avenues Historic District:
13.9 Use primary materials on a building that are similar to those use historically. Appropriate building materials include: brick, stucco, and wood. Building in brick, in sizes and colors similar to those used historically, is preferred. Jumbo, or oversized brick is inappropriate. Using stone, or veneers applied with the bedding plane in a vertical position, is inappropriate. Stucco should appear similar to that used historically. Using panelized products in a manner that reveals large panel modules is inappropriate. In general, panelized and synthetic materials are inappropriate for primary structures. They may be considered on secondary buildings.
Staff's finding of fact: The design of the proposed project is consistent with the ordinance in several areas including the proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids and rhythm of the entrance. Staff finds that the ribbed metal panels and horizontal steel pipe rails are contemporary design solutions that draw upon basic characteristics of historic buildings, but reinforce a modern design aesthetic. The proposed external cladding for the addition, however, fails to convey the same visual appearance of those materials seen historically, and thus is inconsistent with this standard. The high density panel material does not possess the same physical properties (such as composition, texture, pattern and finish) nor is it compatible with the wood and masonry structures found in the district.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district.
Staff's discussion: Although the house is located on a non-complying lot with respect to lot area (3,468 sf) and lot frontage (34'), the established wall of continuity and orientation of the building will not change. Generally, the Commission has not allowed attached garages for new construction unless there is some reason related to size or topography of a property that would not make a separate structure at the rear of the lot feasible. The applicant, however, is only proposing to build a second story addition on an existing dwelling and enclose the attached carport. Thus, an attached garage with a single aluminum door may be acceptable, due to the design of the existing structure and the substandard size of the lot. The design guidelines offer the following guidance for siting new construction.
Standards for New Construction:
11.1 Respect historic settlement patterns. Site new buildings such that they are arranged on their sites in ways similar to historic buildings in the area. This includes consideration of building setbacks, orientation and open space, all of which are addressed in more detail in the individual district standards.
11.2 Preserve the historic district's street plan. Most historic parts of the city developed in traditional grid patterns, with the exception of Capitol Hill. In this neighborhood the street system initially followed the steep topography and later a grid system was overlaid with little regard for the slope. Historic street patterns should be maintained. See specific district standards for more detail. The overall shape of a building can influence one's ability to interpret the town grid. Oddly shaped structures, as opposed to linear forms, would diminish one's perception of the grid, for example. In a similar manner, buildings that are sited at eccentric angles could also weaken the perception of the grid, even if the building itself is rectilinear in shape. Closing streets or alleys and aggregating lots into larger properties would also diminish the perception of the grid.
11.3 Orient the front of a primary structure to the street. The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. An exception is where early developments have introduced curvilinear streets, like Capitol Hill.
Design Standards for the Avenues Historic District:
9.3 Do not attach garages and carports to the primary structure. Traditionally, garages were sited as a separate structure at the rear of the lot; this pattern should be maintained. The allowance of attached accessory structures is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Staff's finding of fact: The orientation and footprint of the building have not changed and are consistent with the typical alignment of the surrounding buildings in the block. The overall impact of an attached garage on the streetscape would not be substantial, give the existing location of the carport and significant setback of the garage wall plane from the primary building facade. The proposed project meets the intent of this standard.
Ms. Lew offered the following Staff's recommendation: “Based upon the above analysis, the Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the application requesting approval to construct a second story addition to an existing house at 726 E. Sixth Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
1. Review of the final details of the design of the proposed project including materials, as well as any other concerns or suggestions expressed by the Commission, shall be delegated to the Planning Staff.
2. This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements.
The Planning Staff does not recommend that the Commission approve Prodema external cladding, as the siding does not convey an appearance similar to traditional building materials nor have an established track record in other applications where its durability and long-term performance have been demonstrated.”
Ms. Lew displayed a sample of the proposed siding material, as well as a manufacturer's brochure. She stated that Staff did not recommend approval of the material based on its composition, its finish and the manner in which it would be installed for the second story addition. Ms. Lew said that it is not consistent with what one might see historically in the period. She asked the Commission to evaluate the material and provide input to its use.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for Staff.
Mr. Ashdown asked if liquid siding was an option that could be used for the siding material. He asked if the ordinance only pointed out materials that have been used historically. Mr. Ashdown stated that the ordinance does not specifically exclude material. Ms. Lew responded by saying that the use of large paneled material, not being appropriate, is stated in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. The pertinent sections are included in the staff report. She also said that the ordinance mentions the use of aluminum and vinyl siding was prohibited as a covering of original historic material on a contributing structure. Ms. Giraud reminded the Commission that the structure was built in 1963 and could be considered a non-contributing building because of its age (less than 50 years old).
Upon hearing no questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Kevin Blalock, the applicant and architect, was present. He introduced his wife, Amy, and said that the project has been in the works for quite some time. Mr. Blalock displayed a model of the proposed second-story addition on the existing structure. He said that when he designed the proposed addition, it was his desire to respect the building, which was originally built with economy in mind. He said the design of the home was an exterior “box” with a carved out space for the carport and punched window openings. Mr. Blalock pointed out the building's horizontal lines, which would be emphasized by a fascia band at the top of the window and doors to the roof. He talked about the horizontal nature of the building. Mr. Blalock referred to the architectural drawings, which accompanied the staff report.
Mr. Blalock displayed a palette of the proposed materials to be used on the building. He said that the first primary material would be the existing cement masonry unit (CMU) with a coat of paint and the second primary materials would be ribbed metal wall panel and the Prodema external cladding, which is a very interesting product. Mr. Blalock said that he decided to use this new product for the following reasons: 1) the second-story addition would be differentiated from the original structure with a lighter colored cladding for contrast; 2) the proposed material would complement the mass of the original structure;
3) there are a number of manufacturers of the material, all of which are in Europe; 4) it is manufactured out of recycled wood materials; 5) It has a thirty-year warranty for finish; 6) there would be no concerns about having to refinish it due to fading, peeling, or cracking; 7) it has dimensional stability so it would not warp or curl; and 8) it comes in panels and more durable than applying cladding directly to the exterior walls. Mr. Blalock noted the changes on the model from the drawings, indicating that a 2' x 8' panel turned horizontally would be applied, rather than the vertically oriented 4' x 8' sheets. He added that it would be a modern interpretation of wood siding material.
Mr. Blalock continued with his description of the proposed project by pointing out the dark band at the second-story addition that would interact with the lighter color of the CMU and maintain the consistency of the roofline. He proposed enclosing the attached carport to be used as a garage. Mr. Blalock pointed out that most of the garages in the Avenues are detached from the main building, and most of which have painted clapboard as the siding. He indicated that it was his desire to use more modern and contemporary materials to enclose his attached carport, but still “mimicked” some of the characteristics of clapboard application, which led him to the horizontal emphasis of the ribbed metal panel. He added that there would be a shadow line as would be if clapboard siding were used, but a more modern interpretation of that use. Mr. Blalock said that the ribbed metal panel would be used as a banding to make the transition from the second story to the roof plane, as well as wrapping the entire first floor at the fascia line.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicants. Members of the Historic Landmark Commission and staff made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Ashdown led the discussion by clarifying that the original concrete block would remain on the first floor. Mr. Blalock pointed out that the existing CMU would remain on the first floor, except where the carport would be enclosed; there the ribbed metal wall panel would be used. He referred to the west (rear) elevation on the drawings. Mr. Blalock stated that the plane of the proposed garage would be setback three feet from the exterior face of the wall, so there would be a deep shadow line. He added that to maintain some consistency, on
the second floor, he “carved” out two spaces on the north/west and the south/east corners for an exterior balcony. Mr. Blalock pointed out that there are not many single-family houses in the Avenues that have a balcony off the second floor; there are several in the multi-family residences.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked if the exterior cladding on the model would replicate and was in proportion to the proposed siding on the second floor. Mr. Blalock said that it was. He also said that the window placement has to do with the position of the interior rooms and its relationship with the first floor windows. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the sample colors on display were the proposed colors that would be used. Mr. Blalock said the colors would be lighter browns, rustic, or fairly neutral colors.
• Mr. Christensen inquired if the windows in the proposed second-floor addition would be setback from the surface plane in the same manner as the way the model was constructed. He stated that he believed that would be a very effective look, especially as they would mimic the indented balcony and garage door. Mr. Christensen asked if the existing windows on the lower section were flush with the wall plane. Mr. Blalock stated that the large window on the front elevation is set back, but the others are on the face. He said that on the proposed second floor, the face of the glass would be setback about three inches. Ms. Lew asked Mr. Blalock to explain how the siding would wrap around the windows. Mr. Blalock explained that the window detail would be very simple and clean and much like the first floor where the six-inch wide CMU block would be turned at the window, and on the second floor the same thing would happen with the wood panel where the exterior face would be continuous and the material would turn with a three inch return, then the window plane would occur. Mr. Simonsen asked if it would just be on the jams and Mr. Blalock said that it would also be in the headers and sills, as well. Mr. Christensen inquired about the proposed railings would be sympathetic with the wood siding or the ribbed metal panels. Mr. Blalock said that all the metal material would be the same color. He responded to another question from Mr. Christensen regarding the porch railings by saying that nothing would be chrome plated.
• Mr. Ashdown asked when the applicant believed the project would be completed. Mr. Blalock said that they were expecting their first child, so he hoped to have it completed in July of 2005. He mentioned that he had a “lot of hoops to jump through”, living in the Avenues. Mr. Blalock said that he had meetings with staff in Building Services, but when he applied for his permit, he was told that a Certificate of Appropriateness would have to be obtained from the Planning Division, so he has been meeting with several members of the Planning Staff. He indicated that he hoped to have an approval at this meeting so he can reapply for a building permit and get started.
• Ms. Heid asked the applicant if he had an alternative material for the siding in the event that the Commission did not approve the new material. Mr. Blalock said that he probably be forced to use a stained wood shiplap siding.
Mr. Blalock said that he owed a sincere apology to his neighbors. He said that he found out only last Friday that the neighbors were in opposition of the project. Mr. Blalock invited the neighbors in the audience to have a closer look at the model. He said that he really believed that he has done his due diligence in trying to make the project fit into the streetscape because he said it was a “wonderful street and a great place to live. There are a lot of amenities”.
Since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for the applicants, Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Simonsen said that he was given two cards from persons who wanted to address the Commission.
Ms. Angie Kirk, who is a resident in the neighborhood, stated that she and her husband purchased their home about ten years ago and understand the frustration the applicants have in being involved in the project, but she also felt it was important to focus on preserving the integrity of the historic neighborhood, and not simply the desire of a single homeowner. She indicated that she had seen the drawings of the project. Ms. Kirk said that the proposed second-story addition would seriously undermine the integrity of the historic Avenues community. She pointed out that the existing home is a fairly unobtrusive structure and if the addition is build, the structure would be transformed into a prominent “eyesore”. Ms. Kirk stated that in the ten years she has resided in her home, the subject property has been a rental and expressed concern of the possibility that the building could be turned into a fourplex or if it would remain a single family dwelling. She did not know if the applicant intended to reside in the home.
Mr. LoPiccolo commented that a letter of opposition was submitted to staff from Ms. Catherine Rockwell, the neighbor to the east, regarding her concern that the proposed second-story addition would infringe on her property rights in terms of views and compatibility. Copies were circulated to the Commission and a copy of the letter was filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Simonsen asked Ms. Rockwell to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Rockwell said that she agreed with the previous neighbor that building a second story on the structure would make it stand out to the other homes on the block. She said that all the houses on the block are single story homes; some appear to have finished attics and others finished basements, but all have only one main floor above ground. Ms. Rockwell referred to a standard in the staff report, [21A.34.020.34.020 (H)(1)(a)], which states, “The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape.” She said that a second story would make this building much higher that most of the surrounding structures.
Ms. Rockwell pointed to an error in the staff report on Page 3, which says that a flat roofed Victorian duplex was to the east; it is to the west and our World War 11-era cottage is to the east, which is her home.
Ms. Rockwell said that there is only nine feet between the subject structure and her home and constructing a second floor on the building would give the appearance of a “slot canyon” between the homes. She pointed out in the aerial photograph that the subject building extends much deeper into the lot than her home and building a second story, would completely cutoff the natural light into her home, which would reduce the value of her property. Ms. Rockwell explained in detail about her windows and the natural light that now enters her home. She said that the proposed second story would block the sun from the south/west that “warms her house in the wintertime”. Ms. Rockwell said that she wanted to see more than the walls of a neighboring house when she looks out her windows.
Ms. Rockwell referred to other concerns she has that are mentioned in her letter, such as the subject property becoming a perpetual construction site and that the applicants would continue to be absentee property owners, who does not know or care about the neighborhood and should not be allowed to alter the property in ways to which the actual residents of the neighborhood object.
In conclusion, Ms. Rockwell urged the Commission to deny the application, but if the application is approved, she requested that the Commission state that the applicant could not start until all the appeals had been processed.
Mr. Ashdown asked if Ms. Rockwell knew the history of the building on the subject property and if it was built on an adjoining or single piece of property. Ms. Rockwell said that she did not know because she and her husband bought their home in 1993, and the current structure at 726 E. Sixth Avenue existed at the time. She mentioned that the subject lot is much narrower than her property. Mr. Ashdown asked if the Rockwell's had any thoughts about purchasing the subject property when it was on the market. Ms. Rockwell said that they would have been interested, but they did not know when it went on the market because the property was never advertised as being available to purchase.
Someone from the audience asked if she could address the applicants. Mr. Simonsen asked staff to respond. Mr. Wilde suggested that all communication be directed toward the Commission.
• Ms. Rowland inquired if it was appropriate for the Commission to ask the applicant if he intends to live in the home when completed and if a decision should be based on the answer. She believed it was the right of a property owner to live in the home, rent it, or sell it to another party. Mr. Simonsen clarified that the Commission would be making a decision on the findings of fact and the zoning ordinance. He said that he believed it would be useful for the applicant to address the questions of the neighbors.
Mr. Blalock stated that he welcomed any contact with the neighbors regarding the property. He gave out his telephone number to the neighbors. Mr. Blalock said that the subject property “is destined to be our home, a single family residence, and when I bought the property, it existed, as I was told, as an illegal duplex. It had a mother-in-law apartment in the back third”. He said that since he purchased the property, renovation has been a slow and tedious process because he maintains a full-time job and has tried to do the construction work himself, as much as possible. Mr. Blalock said that it was important to finish the project and a contractor has been selected who has set forth a schedule for completion. He added that money has been a factor. Mr. Blalock stated that where he is currently residing during the renovation process there are two and three-story apartment buildings to the southwest. He said that he could not change the fact that they exist. Mr. Blalock commented on the words used when the neighbors were describing his property. He added that spectators have stopped by while he has been renovating the inside and gave him words of encouragement. Mr. Blalock said that he believed that property values would increase as the result of the addition. He said that the home would increase from approximately 1,200 square feet to 2,300 or 2,400 square feet. Mr. Blalock also pointed out that he was confined to a very small lot and where he is lacking in yard, he is making up in house. He noted that he designed the project to what is permitted on the property.
• Mr. Christensen asked about the entrance to what could be the basement and the stairway that used to get to that door is now under the deck. He asked if the basement would be accessed from that door. Mr. Blalock said that the basement is unfinished and it is small and basically used for storage and he does not plan to develop that entrance. Mr. Christensen said that the plans call for an aluminum/glass garage door and asked the applicant to expand on that description since it would be on the front elevation. Mr. Blalock said that he had not selected a garage door but would like to find one that would bring some light into the garage through the glass in the door.
Upon hearing no additional comments from the audience, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he wanted to make certain that the Commission based its decision on the ordinance and the findings of fact presented in the staff report.
Responding to Ms. Mickelsen's question about the zoning, Mr. LoPiccolo pointed out that the project meets all zoning requirements and would follow the existing footprint. He said that the setbacks were established on that concept within the language of the ordinance, so if the applicant had a substandard setback, the City would not request that it comply with the current side yard setback. He added that it would be considered an “inline addition”. Mr. LoPiccolo stated that the only thing asked of the Commission at this meeting would be the choice of materials that the property owner requested.
Mr. Christensen stated that one of the neighbors posed a question about the thirty-day period for filing an appeal and asked if it was possible for neighbors to file an appeal. Mr. LoPiccolo said that if the Commission decides to grant the owner the right to construct the addition, the applicant has every right to pull a building permit. Mr. LoPiccolo continued by saying that if an adjacent property owner wants to appeal that decision, then that property owner has every right to appeal the decision; the property owner would be the one running the risk.
Mr. Simonsen said that the threat of an appeal should not have an impact on the Commission's decision and is not pertinent to the application. He suggested that if the Commission wants to continue this discussion, then it could be resumed after a motion has been made.
Mr. Simonsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission does not review many structures considered non-contributing. After Mr. Simonsen inquired, it was the general consensus of the members that it would be helpful if the Commission went through the findings of fact listed in the staff report. [Please note that staff's findings and discussions can be found in accompanying staff report and the staff report section of the minutes.]
Mr. Simonsen read the first finding, which is on Page 5 of the staff report. Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission:
Mr. Ashdown said that he had trouble seeing how the proposed project would be consistent with the neighborhood in height and scale and believed that the Commission should be more concerned with that concept than with individual buildings.
Ms. Lew said that there is a structure next door that has a flat roof, as well as the apartments to the rear.
Mr. Simonsen said that he observed as he drove around the neighborhood other examples of eclectic architecture that exist in that context.
Mr. Ashdown said that in the Avenues, the Commission would find exceptions to all rules. He said that he believed the application should be reviewed in a broader scope because the majority of the houses in the Avenues have pitched roofs and are one and one-half stories tall; therefore, he did not find the proposed project consistent with the neighborhood.
Mr. Simonsen stated that he found just the opposite. He stated that he found many exceptions to the Victorian eclectic or bungalow styles and believed that the exceptions make up the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Simonsen said that there are many historic buildings within a one-block radius that have very different in style than the buildings on either side of the subject structure. Mr. Simonsen said that he imagined a designer and a developer having the same struggles as the applicant in trying to take a contemporary building and have some assemblage of fitting into a district that is defined by houses that vary greatly in style.
Ms. Rowland said that she agreed that the eclectic nature of the Avenues Historic District is its defining character because it is not a single subdivision created by one developer. Ms. Rowland noted that the Commission should not be making a decision based on the style of a building.
Mr. Simonsen said that although the subject property did not seem to be consistent with its immediate neighbors, it would be consistent with the context of the district.
Mr. Simonsen read the second finding on Page 8 of the staff report.
Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission:
Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the proposed materials were revised from the original drawings, that accompanied the staff report, from 4'x 8' panels to horizontally-oriented siding and the face of it appears to be a natural wood product and not synthetic.
Ms. Heid pointed out that the material is described on the plans as a natural wood finish coated with acrylic.
Mr. Ashdown said that the ordinance does not clearly define synthetic materials. Mr. Parvaz reminded the Commission that the structure is not an historic building.
In viewing the model again, Mr. Christensen indicated that the applicant should have been asked about the scoring lines where the narrow layers are fitted together because the Commission did not have a sense of what fill material would be used. He wondered if there would be a contrasting color of grout used to break up the look of the siding. Mr. Christensen inquired if the meeting could be reopened to the public so that the applicant could be asked some additional questions.
It was the general consensus of the Commission to reopen the meeting. Mr. Simonsen complied and asked Mr. Blalock to come forward to address the Commission once more.
Mr. Blalock said that the spacing on the model, although exaggerated somewhat, is accurate. He added that the actual spacing would be about 1 /4” to 3/8” for ventilation.
Ms. Heid noted that the majority of the material used is the recycled wood composite. Mr. LoPiccolo said that staff was concerned with the proposed material because it was foreign to staff, although they knew the material was wood but it acts more like a veneer. He added that those were the reasons why this application was brought before the Commission. Mr. LoPiccolo pointed out that at one time, the Commission reviewed Hardiplank, which was a new material and foreign to staff and used quite prevalently in many areas.
Ms. Rowland brought out the fact that brick veneer is also widely used.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the difference is that Hardiboard and brick veneer looks like their traditional counterpart; the subject material is not going to look like anything traditional. She said that she was concerned about setting a precedent for the Commission on a material that the Commission or staff has never seen.
Mr. Simonsen said that he appreciated the applicant's contemporary attempt to try to mimic the horizontal banding with a shadow line, which is found on clapboard siding. He said that he was more comfortable with the revisions that the applicant had made.
Ms. Lew stated that this application could be considered a “test case”. Ms. Mickelsen said that she would rather test a case in a non-historic district. She also said that the pictures in the manufacturer's brochure were of modern and contemporary buildings.
Since there were no additional questions for the applicant, Mr. Simonsen reclosed the public hearing and proceeded to the executive session portion of the meeting.
The discussion turned to the use of metal siding. Mr. LoPiccolo explained staff's point of view, which is included in the staff report. Mr. Simonsen reiterated that metal could not be used to cover an historic fabric, according to the guidelines. He stated that the Commission has to decide whether or not the proposed materials are appropriate for this application.
Ms. Lew said that the major portion of its use would be along the garage and metal was used historically for garages. She added that the metal panel might be seen as a modern interpretation. Ms. Lew indicated that the applicant would also use it as an accent material. Mr. Ashdown noted that this material was corrugated metal.
Mr. Christensen reminded the Commission of a case in Capitol Hill that involved the use of a vinyl fence on a property that had a fairly new house on it, and the Commission applied the standards in the ordinance to historic properties. He added that the Commission denied the vinyl fence and the applicant won an appeal from the Land Use Appeals Board. Mr. Christensen stated that using new materials is a reality whether some Commissioners are comfortable with it or not. He commented that non-contributing structures seemed to have more flexibility in the ordinance than historic buildings.
Mr. Simonsen said that metal is a very contemporary material and the Commission needs to evaluate the material for a modern structure, and not a Victorian-style historic house.
Mr. Christensen stated that the applicant mentioned that a stained real wood product would be an option for the siding. Mr. Simonsen said that he did not believe that using a real wood material would change the character of the structure. However, he added that how the material would look five to ten years from now is a valid concern.
The discussion continued. Some members of the Commission cited other examples of contemporary buildings in historic districts.
Mr. Simonsen read the last finding found on Page 9. Discussion by the Historic Landmark Commission:
There was no controversy regarding this finding.
Mr. Simonsen entertained a motion reminding the Commission that findings needed to be clearly stated.
Motion:
In the matter of Case No. 001-05 at 726 E. Sixth Avenue, Ms. Rowland moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the project, as proposed, with the modification and segmenting of the panels, based on the following ·findings of fact: 1) that the structure would be compatible in height, width, and scale with the other buildings on the block and within the district; 2) that both the new material, Prodema, the ribbed panels, and the horizontal steel pipe rails, are contemporary design solutions that draw upon basic characteristics of historic buildings, but reinforce the modern design aesthetic. The Prodema would be considered in the same category as the metal materials as a contemporary solution since it is an actual wood product and not a synthetic material. These materials would not be appropriate for historic buildings, but could be used for new construction or a noncontributing, non-compatible, structure; and 3) that the orientation and footprint of the building would not change. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted “Aye”. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Mickelsen were opposed. Mr. Fitzsimmons and Ms. White were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ashdown moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Simonsen adjourned the meeting at 6:15P.M.