SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
The field trip was cancelled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Noreen Heid was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Cheri Coffey, Principal Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the November 7, 2001 meeting. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
The approval of the minutes from the December 19, 2001 meeting was postponed. (Mr. Christensen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Wilson arrived at 4:05P.M.)
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Parvaz stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Cindy Cromer stated that she has been a resident in the East Central City neighborhood for 30 years. She talked about an agenda item that was recently approved by the Planning Commission regarding the TC (Transit Corridor) zoning district along 400 South. Ms. Cromer said that the Planning Commission increased the maximum height for new construction another five feet, which makes the maximum 50 feet. She said that she thought that the 45-feet limit was too high. Ms. Cromer pointed out that there is no compatibility review process in place. She said that a section of 400 South falls into the Central City Historic District, but only between 500 and 700 East, where this Commission would have the purview. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission would review any project for compatibility that would be abutting historic properties.
Ms. Cromer said that the Bryant neighborhood is on the National Register of Historic Places and the Bennion neighborhoods' petition is pending. She mentioned that because these two neighborhoods are not listed on the City register, this Commission has no purview over those neighborhoods. Ms. Cromer indicated that the issue of compatibility has been in the East Central Community Master Plan since 1994. She stated that the same day when the Planning Commission took action on the TC zone, Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, the City's Planning Director, said not to expect a compatibility review any time soon for those neighborhoods.
Ms. Cromer said the petition would be going to the City Council with the height proposed at 50 feet and no compatibility review in place. She commented that on the north side of 400 South in the proposed TC zone, there are many single-family dwellings and duplexes that are historic and those could literally be in the shadow of infill development most of the year.
Ms. Cromer invited the members of the Historic Landmark Commission to either call the petition back and deal with the historic preservation issues or, at least, send the City Council a message that the this Commission did not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendations. She talked of her commitment to stop the petition for the TC zone until there is some kind compatibility review to protect the historic properties on the north side of 400 South. Ms. Cromer stated that the Planning Commission seems to be very unsympathetic to the existing residents between 700 and 900 East. She said that the City Administration seems to be more in favor of new development rather than the people who have been living in their historic homes for many years. Ms. Cromer stated that this was not acceptable.
Ms. Giraud suggested discussing this issue at the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Parvaz was concerned about the timing factor. She introduced Ms. Cheri Coffey, on the Planning staff, who was more knowledgeable about the petition.
Ms. Coffey said that the Planning Commission approved the petition on December 13, 2001. She explained the paperwork that has to be completed before the petition was ready for a public hearing at a City Council meeting. Ms. Coffey believed it would be several months before the petition would be transmitted to the City Council.
Mr. Parvaz asked staff to study this further and bring it to the Commission for discussion.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Transit Corridor Zoning District be discussed at the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Ms. Mickelsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid and Ms. Rowland were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
There were no further public comments to the Commission. (Ms. Rowland arrived at 4:15P.M.)
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 028-01. in Liberty Park. by the Salt Lake City Parks Division. requesting approval for removal of existing trees. planting new trees. realignment of sidewalks. and installation of new landscaping along the north-south corridor through the middle of the park. at approximately 600 East. Liberty Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Ms. Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the Historic Landmark Commission continued this item without discussion at its last meeting on December 19, 2001. Ms. Lew stated that the Salt Lake City Parks Division of the Department of Public Services, represented by Mr. Dell Cook, Landscape Architectural Project Manager, is requesting approval to undertake improvements to the 600 East pedestrian promenade and allee of trees in Liberty Park. She said the scope of the work includes the removal of mature trees that are hazardous, planting new trees, sidewalk realignment, and general landscape improvements. Liberty Park is located between 500 and 700 East, and 900 and 1300 South streets and is listed as a landmark site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and is also a National Register Historic District.
Ms. Lew stated that Liberty Park has undergone several major upgrades. She said that the Historic Landmark Commission approved several infra-structure projects listed among the highest priority improvements for the first phase (Project 1).
Ms. Lew explained that the current proposal to improve the 600 East pedestrian promenade, also was identified as part of Project 1. She said that the scooping plan identified the allee of trees as an important landscape element of the park, which requires special treatment to ensure its long-term survival. Ms. Lew added that maintenance efforts have to be made to protect and preserve as many trees as possible and that hazardous trees be removed. She said that the plan also suggests that new trees be planted in a second row so when they grow, they would replace the old and deteriorating cottonwood trees. Ms. Lew pronounced that long-term management includes the phasing of new plantings to overcome the effect of "same age" trees that all mature and thus, must be removed at the same time.
Ms. Lew addressed the following: The Public Safety Division has expressed concern about the hazardous condition of the trees adjacent to the pedestrian promenade because many of the trees have dropped limbs. To address this concern, eighteen hazardous trees have already been removed and the Parks Division has proposed a tree replacement program for the area. It is believed that the new plantings could eventually recreate the beauty and form of the existing canopy if properly maintained. The Fremont Poplars located along the 600 East pedestrian promenade are listed on the Utah State Heritage Trees Register. This listing provides another level of review for proposed alterations or removal of trees from inappropriate pruning, trimming, topping or cutting, or any other act which may lead to the demise or decline of the tree. The appropriate authorities have been involved in the development of this proposed tree management program.
Ms. Lew explained the proposal in the following manner: During the next 20 years, old and deteriorating cottonwood trees that become a threat to visitor safety will be removed. The Parks Division's replacement strategy is to plant new trees in a second row along the interior of the pedestrian promenade so that they can begin to grow and ultimately replace the mature trees. The existing pedestrian walkways will be removed to accommodate the new trees and realigned. These improvements will have the effect of narrowing the distance between the stands of trees from approximately 90 feet to 60 feet (center to center), in the area, which was once the central access road along 600 East. The existing light fixtures would remain in place. The Parks Division has not determined a specific replacement tree yet. The objective is to recreate the form of the existing allee of trees. Availability will also influence the selection of a replacement tree. The last component of this proposal is to replace the existing sod from under the mature trees with bark mulch. The intent of this change is to discourage public gatherings under the older trees. An appropriate groundcover would be installed following removal of all of the older trees.
Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G}, Standards for Certificate of
Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure:
(G) 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:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;
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;
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;
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;
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;
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible;
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;
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;
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;
11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of any existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site of H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined n Part IV, Chapter 21.A.46, Signs; and
12.Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council.
trees and landscaping. Although, the improvements include the eventual removal and replacement of an entire historic feature (alley of trees) and will alter the historic relationship between the landscape feature and open space. In these instances, staff recommends that the Commission defer to the City's Urban Forester and Parks Division officials. The Parks Division has determined that more than protection and maintenance are required to preserve the historic character of the 600 East pedestrian promenade. The old and deteriorating trees need to be removed for public safety reasons. An overall replanting is proposed which provides sufficient separation between the two stands to secure the establishment of the new trees. In time, the proposed replacement plan will recreate the form of the historic landscape feature.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed alterations comply with the pertinent standards outlined in Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Lewis offered the following staff recommendation: "Based on the findings, staff recommends approval of the proposed 600 East pedestrian promenade improvements subject to the following conditions: 1) the new trees, when mature, create the same visual appearance as the existing tree canopy; and 2) if using the same species of tree is not feasible, then a compatible substitute shall be installed."
Since there were no questions for staff, Mr. Parvaz asked the applicant to address the Commission.
Mr. Dell Cook, representing the applicant was present. He stated that this issue was brought to the Parks Division as priority because of the City's Risk Management's concern that a limb may fall on someone and cause injuries. He said that since the 24th of July, four major limbs have fallen from those trees.
Mr. Cook said that the Parks Division offered the following three simulations, which were attached to the staff report: 1) prune the trees and cut the long overhanging limbs back to a minimal; 2) plant new trees as the old ones are being phased out. However, the new trees would not optimally grow because the affect the overhanging old trees would have on them; or 3) remove all the trees, including the stumps, and replace them with similar new trees. He said that as a landscape architect, he believed that the removal and replacement of the trees would be the best solution. Mr. Cook stated that phasing the old trees out over a 20-year period would minimize the aesthetic visual impact.
Mr. Cook said that the Fremont Poplar trees are not to be found with a caliper size that would survive the seasons and look aesthetically acceptable in the quantity needed. Finding enough of any appropriate tree would be difficult.
Mr. Cook pointed out that in the meantime, the City does not want people lounging underneath those trees, so the grass will still have to be removed and replaced with bark mulch.
Ms. Cook said that the existing sidewalks underneath the canopy would need to be removed and replaced with new sidewalks in the configuration as shown on the drawings that accompanies the staff report. He said that the new trees would be planted in the same location as the existing sidewalks and the new sidewalks would be constructed just inside of the footprint of the new trees to replicate as closely as possible the existing condition, which would minimize the risk to the City.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by talking further about trimming the trees and removing all the dead branches. Mr. Cook said that the officials at Risk Management told the City Urban Forester to trim the trees back immediately, and to fence the areas underneath those trees so no one could congregate in those areas. Mr. Cook circulated additional photographs depicting the hazardous trees. Some of the trees had been trimmed with the dead limbs removed. Mr. Cook said that by trimming those trees, the Urban Forester hoped to alleviate the problem, but would not totally eliminate the risk. He said that some of the trees are in such a declining state that they are hollow inside and the limbs are too heavy for the trunk. Mr. Cook said that sycamore trees were his choice because they are not so susceptible to disease. He said that 4-inch caliper trunks which would be approximately 25 feet tall are available. Mr. Cook said that funding was not yet approved. He talked about the wonderful canopies that sycamore trees create. He said the Urban Forester believes they are too widely used in the city. Mr. Cook said that there were others in Liberty Park, but were not extensively used in the park. He referred to the list of trees that were included in the staff report.
• Mr. Simonsen inquired further about the sidewalks having to be moved. Mr. Cook said that the new trees could not be planted in the same footprint as the old trees because of the old root systems; that is why they would be planted where the existing sidewalks are. Mr. Simonsen asked if the new trees could be staggered in between where the old trees are being removed. Mr. Cook said that he did not think that would be possible either; they have to be moved farther away. The distance would only be about 12 - 12feet, rather than 30 feet, from the footprint of the existing sidewalks. Mr. Cook said that the current sidewalks are about 7 feet wide and the replacements would be 10 feet wide so they would comply with all the pathway issues that are recommended these days. They would be about the same proximity as the existing sidewalks are to the old trees.
• Mr. Ashdown asked about the lighting. Mr. Cook said that new lighting was installed last year along the promenade between the old and the proposed new sidewalks.
• Mr. Young inquired if the replacement trees would be native to Utah. Mr. Cook said that he never thought that the Fremont Poplar trees were native to Utah, but some people believe they are indigenous. He added that none of the recommended replacement trees are native to Utah, but any of them would grow very well here. Me. Young asked about drought tolerant trees. Mr. Cook said that none of the recommended trees are drought-tolerant as well. Mr. Young said that he believed that the City government needed to be leaders in environmental activity and by putting plants and trees in that might need more water usage is a bad direction. Mr. Cook said that none of the recommended trees would use more water that the existing Fremont Poplar trees. Mr. Young suggested that Mr. Cook recommend other trees that do not appear on the list. Mr. Young inquired if it was a good idea to plant all the same species of plant a variety of trees. Mr. Cook said that it would be better to plant a variety of species, but historically and aesthetically, planting the same species would be replicating what is there. He noted that to create an allee the trees would be all of one variety. There was further discussion regarding species of trees.
• Ms. Giraud said that some of the other heritage tree experts and specialists were consulted. She said that the state has a heritage tree program, like the National Register of Historic Places program for trees. Ms. Giraud said that one proposal was to use the stumps of the Fremont Poplar trees and carve them into sculptures. Mr. Cook said that would not take place. He said that there have been 18 trees already removed and there is a possibility of constructing something out of the lumber from the historic trees as a memorial. He also said that Freemont Poplar and cottonwood trees do not make the best lumber.
• Mr. Wilson suggested planting the new trees, then removing the old trees. Mr.
Cook said that there would have to be more caution used when the old tree is removed so there would not be damage done to the new ones. Again, Mr. Cook suggested that "we bite the bullet" and remove all the diseased trees at the same time.
The conversation focused on the age of the historic trees and how long they have lasted. The discussion also included on the issue of fear that Urban Foresters have when one variety of tree is overused in a city and the possibility of a disease affecting one species of tree and virtually wiping out that type of tree, if they are overused.
Mr. Cook concluded saying that it was important that an historical allee be created as part of the aesthetic fabric of Liberty Park. He added that the only allee more beautiful is on Main Street in Brigham City, Utah. Mr. Simonsen added that his grandfather planted those trees in 1920.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session
There was further discussion regarding the proposal and the issues at hand. Mr. Christensen expressed concerned about replacing that beautiful green space in the park with bark mulch underneath the trees. It was also discussed that staff did not make a recommendation for any of the options given by the applicant, that Mr. Cook recommended removing the old trees and replacing them with new ones.
First motion:
Mr. Young moved to approve Case No. 028-01, based on staff's findings of fact and recommendations.
There were some suggestions for amending the motion. Amended motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 028-01 to approve the complete removal of the hazardous trees on the 600 East promenade in Liberty Park and replace them with new trees that would create the same visual appearance as the existing tree canopy, based on staff's findings of fact. Further, if using the same species of tree is not feasible, than a compatible substitute shall be installed. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Protasevich, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were opposed. Ms. Heid was not present. Since there was a tie vote, the Chair was asked to break the tie. Mr. Parvaz was opposed. The motion failed.
Mr. Ashdown said that he realized that would be a drastic measure but in his opinion, if • the trees are not removed it would delay the growth of the new trees.
Mr. Simonsen said that he was almost taken out by a limb falling, not at Liberty Park, so he knows the City faces a real liability. He said that when those trees were planted along 600 East, they were small too like the ones that are being proposed, and part of the wonder of the park is seeing nature as it matures and grows and changes through time.
Mr. Littig said that he was concerned that the City's Urban Forester would not approve the planting of sycamore trees. He inquired if all the trees were planted at the same time and recommended keeping the trees that are in good health.
Mr. Christensen inquired if there were other Fremont Poplar trees on that block that would continue to be in place, because he said he would not want to lose that element completely. He suggested that if those trees come down along the promenade that there would be other Fremont Poplar trees planted elsewhere in the park. He believed there should be some evidence behind where these trees once stood.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the Fremont Poplar trees were the first choice. Mr. Christensen said that they could not find enough to plant along the promenade.
Mr. Parvaz asked if the applicant wanted to readdress the Commission.
Mr. Cook said that it was his understanding that all the trees on the promenade were in bad health, some worse than others. He said the trees were examined by other experts and considered what is called a "spiral decline mode" which would accelerate as time goes on.
Ms. Mickelsen believed that the City Urban Forester should determine the kind of trees to be planted.
Mr. Cook said that the decision to remove any trees in Liberty Park would cause a public outcry.
The discussion continued about the quantity and caliper of available trees, as well as matters relating this case.
Due to the urgency of making a decision regarding the removal of the hazardous trees, the Historic Landmark Commission determined an approval of one of the presented options should be rendered at this meeting.
Second motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved for Case No. 028-01, based on staff's findings of fact, to approve phasing out the hazardous trees on the 600 East promenade in Liberty Park on a gradual basis, with the following conditions: 1) replace the old trees with new trees that would create the same size, scale, and visual appearance as the existing tree canopy; 2) if using the same species of tree is not feasible, than a compatible substitute shall be installed; and 3) the species of new trees would be determined by the City's Urban Forester.
Mr. Christensen talked about a visual reminder of the trees that lined the promenade and suggested amending the motion.
Mr. Ashdown talked about comparing old photographs of the park and seeing how the landscaping once was.
Mr. Parvaz said that if the Commission wanted the new trees to be planted symmetrically or leave that up to the Urban Forester. Mr. Young said that he thought that was out of the Commission's purview. He likened it to the Commission telling someone where to build a sun porch.
Amended second motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved for Case No. 028-01, based on staff's findings of fact, to approve the removal of the hazardous trees on the 600 East promenade in Liberty Park with the following conditions: 1) to defer to the City's Urban Forester whether the trees needed to be removed at the same time, or remove them in phases on a gradual basis; 2) replace the old trees with new trees that would create the same size, scale, and visual appearance as the existing tree canopy; 3) if using the same species of trees is not feasible, than a compatible substitute shall be installed; 3) the species of new trees would be determined by the City's Urban Forester; 4) about six new Fremont Poplar trees be placed in the alignment of the original promenade to epitomize what was originally there.
After some further discussion, Mr. Christensen changed his amendment. Ms. Mickelsen accepted that change. There was some discussion clarifying the wording of the motion.
Final Amended second motion:
Ms. Mickelsen moved for Case No. 028-01, based on staff's findings of fact, to approve the removal of the hazardous trees on the 600 East promenade in Liberty Park in phases on a gradual basis with the following conditions: 1) replace the old trees with new trees that would create the same size, scale, and visual appearance as the existing tree canopy; 2) if using the same species of trees is not feasible, than a compatible substitute shall be installed; 3) the species of new trees would be determined by the City's Urban Forester; and 4) that as many as possible new Fremont poplar trees be placed somewhere in the park to epitomize what was originally on the pedestrian promenade. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Young was opposed. Ms. Heid was not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 001-01. at 631-633 North West Capitol Street. By Jim Oliver, requesting approval of revisions to previously approved plans for a new duplex in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
• Mr. Wilson recused himself during this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Knight presented the following memorandum: The Commission reviewed this case at the last meeting and passed the following motion: "Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 001-01 to accept staff's findings of fact and also the recommendation that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the front yard grade change and the placement of the retaining wall, pending Board of Adjustment approval of a variance. Also move that the Historic Landmark Commission require the overall height of the building to be lowered by 3-/'2 feet in relationship to the street, which can be accomplished by reducing the height of the walls or the roof structure. This building, in its present form, does not meet the massing and form requirements, based on the Capitol Hill Historic District guidelines of design. Further; the case is to return to the full Commission for final approval. The case will be continued at the January 2, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Young seconded the motion." A copy of the memorandum with the accompanying revised drawings and original drawings, and copies of photographs were filed with the minutes.
Mr. Knight said that the revised plan have not been reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee, since no meeting has been held since December 19, 2001, the date of the last Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Young said that on the revised drawings of the west elevation, the roof shows a valley between the two gables that is now shown on the original plans. Mr. Knight suggested asking the applicant to clarify this portion of the drawings.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Jim Oliver, applicant, was present. He stated that he lowered the height of the building by 44 inches. Mr. Oliver said that he changed the pitch on the roof from 12:12 to 8:12. He explained that the valley between the gables on the revised plans is attributed to the fact that the gables on the original drawings created enough head room for a loft, but by lowering the height that space is no longer usable. Mr. Oliver stated that the revised drawings show what was requested in the motion of the last meeting. He said he also was contemplating putting in a dormer and a hipped roof, which would be similar to the house across the street. He presented an additional drawing to the commission showing this option.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if the revised drawings complied with the zoning. Mr. Knight said that the height on the original plans met the zoning issues.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Since the Commission had no questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Parvaz talked about the two proposals and inquired if the Commissioners were agreeable to the revised plans. Ms. Rowland said that the drawing that is being passed around seems to be another alternative. Mr. Parvaz said that it was but has not been reviewed by staff or the Commission.
Mr. Knight said that the option of changing the design to a hipped roof was raised at an Architectural Subcommittee meeting prior to the December 19th meeting. He said from the staff’s point of view, it addresses some of the massing issues, but the wording of the motion was very clear that the height of the building has to be reduced by 3-% feet. He added that it would be up to the Commission if the members wanted to revisit that idea. Mr. Knight also said that if the Commission approves that alternative, it would have to be stated that the motion would override the motion rendered on December 19th.
Mr. Simonsen said that he believed that he made the suggestion of the hipped roof, however it should be done in the front and the back, not just the front.
Mr. Littig said it would like to see a combination of the two revisions. He said that he was not comfortable with the way the building would look in the front. He wished it would have a hipped roof, which would be a better choice for the scale and massing on the south elevation. Mr. Littig said that the applicant has lost the loft space and still is stuck with a gable end, which is not aesthetically satisfactory. He added that it is not a bungalow style but a hipped roof at the lower pitch it would read better for him.
Mr. Simonsen said one thing the Commissioners have to keep in mind is that we are not the designers and has to review the configuration as presented, and decide if it is acceptable or not acceptable with regard to the design guidelines. Some other members agreed.
Mr. Parvaz said that the applicant thinks he has done what the Commission asked him to do.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the revised drawings looked more comfortable from the side elevations.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the revised plans for Case No. 001-01 that accompanied the staff report, showing the height being reduced by 44 inches with a lower pitched roof. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion.
Mr. Knight made some suggestions as to how the motion should be worded because staff did not make findings on the alternative plans. There was some discussion clarifying issues of the case.
Mr. Simonsen said that because the topography was different, the building is now approximately 4 feet higher than it was when it was approved and that was a problem. He said, "I contend that, personally, I don't think this really changes the massing because we don't perceive buildings in elevation when we see them. I don't think it would be that noticeable. I don't think I felt it was out of character before. I just wanted to make that clear. To me it is not that significant of a change."
Amended final motion:
Mr. Christensen moved to approve the revised plans for Case No. 001-01 that accompanied the staff report, showing the height being reduced by 44 inches with a 8:12 rather than a 12:12 pitched roof because this modified design would make the height, scale, and massing of the structure acceptable for the historic district. Mr. Rowland's second still stood. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig was opposed. Mr. Wilson was in a state of recusion. Ms. Heid was not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed
Mr. Wilson returned to the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 001-02, at 178 South 1200 East, by Tim and Shelly Fletcher, requesting legalization of vinyl fencing installed in 1998 in the front and side yards without a permit. The property is located in the University Historic District.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Knight said that the applicants, Tim and Shelly Fletcher, are requesting legalization of a vinyl fence that was installed in May 1998 at 178 South 1200 East, which is located at the northwest corner of 200 South and 1200 East.
Mr. Knight addressed the following: The University Historic District was created on November 21, 1991. In October 1995, the City recorded a notice on the title of each property within the University Historic District. This was after several cases in which new owners of a building were not aware of their property being in an historic district. Staff checked the Salt Lake County Recorder's title record and verified that the notice was recorded on this property on October 26, 1995.
The applicants purchased the property on contract in April 1998 and had the fence installed in May 1998. Brookline Vinyl installed the fence. No permits were obtained for construction of the fence from the Historic Landmark Commission staff or the City, although permits are not normally required to construct a fence outside of the city's historic districts.
In November 2001, staff was meeting with another property owner on 1200 East and noticed the fence at this address. After verifying that no permit for the fence was issued, staff contacted the City zoning enforcement Division, who initiated enforcement on the property on November 15th. Upon receMng a notice of the violation, Mr. and Mrs. Fletcher contacted the Historic Landmark Commission staff and explained that the fence had been installed for 2-years, and they were not aware of the existence of the historic district until receMng notice of the zoning violation. Staff encouraged the applicant to request legalization of the fence from the Commission.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020.34.020(E)(9) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of fencing and other site features such as walls, paving and grading, on properties in historic districts. The Historic Landmark Commission should make findings on this case based upon Section 21A.34.020.34.020(G) Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure.
(G) 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:"
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;
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;
3. All sites 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;
4. Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved;
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;
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible;
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;
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;
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;
11. Any new sign and any change in the appearance of an existing sign located on a landmark site or within the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, which is visible from any public way or open space shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site of H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall be consistent with the historic character of the landmark site of H Historic Preservation Overlay District and shall comply with the standards outlined in Part IV, Chapter 21.A.46, Signs; and
12. Additional design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council
The Historic Landmark Commission 's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City addresses vinyl fencing in guidelines 1.3 and 1.4:
1.3 For a replacement fence, use materials that appear similar to that of the original. A painted wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in most locations. A simple metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron" or wire, also may be considered. In all cases, the fence components should be similar in scale to those seen historically in the neighborhood.
1.4 A replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. Using a solid fence, with no spacing between the boards, is inappropriate in a front yard. Chain link is not allowed as a fence material where it would be visible from the street. Vinyl fencing is reviewed on a case by case basis. In some instances, it is allowed if it is not seen from the street, if the style of the fence is compatible with the house and if the vinyl fence is not replacing a historic fence or landscape feature.
Staff's discussion: In 1996, the Commission reviewed a request for a vinyl fence similar to the fence in this case at 236 N. Canyon Road. In that case, the Commission allowed the fence, even though it is readily visible from the street, because the style, scale, height, and detail of the fence was compatible with the character of the house and no historic features were removed. The Commission noted that the full Commission should review any requests for vinyl fencing on a case-by-case basis. Subsequently, the Commission has discouraged vinyl fences in the historic districts, and Historic Landmark Commission staff does not administratively approve the construction of any vinyl fences, even if they appear to meet the criteria for approval.
This case is similar to the 1996 case in many ways. The fence is located on a corner lot and is readily visible from the street. Historic Landmark Commission file photos (taken in 1990) indicate that the yard was not fenced before construction of this fence. No historic or tax photos of the house were available to identify the appearance of the building prior to 1990, but staff surmises that the historic appearance did not substantially differ from its appearance in 1990, and no historic fences or landscape features were removed to construct this fence.
The design guidelines note that wood picket fences are generally suitable for use in the historic districts. The design of the fence is simple and compatible with the simple classical architectural detailing of the house. The staff encourages owners to consider a fence lower than the four-foot fence allowed in front yards in the city, because historically most fences were three feet or less. The fence in this case is three feet tall at its highest point. The proportions of the fence and the spacing between the pickets on this fence appear to be closer to historic fences than many of the vinyl fences seen throughout the valley.
Nevertheless, the fence is constructed of vinyl, a non-historic material. This is discernable from a distance. The fence does not possess the physical properties (such as composition and texture) or historical authenticity of a wood fence. The fence is a highly visible part of the streetscape on this corner, and has the potential to negatively impact historic character of the streetscape. This potential is diminished by the fact that no complaints about the fence were received from the surrounding neighbors, and the fence sat unnoticed for 3-1/2 years. The Commission should also evaluate the potential for setting a negative precedent with this case. Overall, staff feels that the standards established by the Commission in previous cases and the design guidelines have been met in this case; fairness due to the time elapsed between the installation and enforcement action justify legalizing the fence in this instance.
Staff's finding of fact: The request for legalization substantially complies with the pertinent standards of 21A.34.020.G of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and the decision is in the best interest of the city. Although visible from the street, a vinyl fence is acceptable in this case because the fence did not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and the design is compatible with the size, scale, color, design and character of the house and surrounding University Historic District.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff's recommendation: "Based upon the findings of fact, staff recommends legalization of the vinyl fence in this case with the condition that the applicants obtain the necessary building permits for the fence from the city.
Staff also recommends that any requests for vinyl fencing should be reviewed on a case by case basis by the full Historic Landmark Commission."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Ms. Giraud clarified that the wording in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City regarding vinyl fences was adopted after the fence on Canyon Road was approved. She said that an approval on a case-by-case basis would also depend on the location and the type of vinyl fence.
Mr. Littig said the problem he has with vinyl fences is that they are shiny. Mr. Ashdown inquired about the sheen on the subject fence. Ms. Mickelsen said that it was very shiny.
There was some further discussion regarding vinyl fences, the zoning ordinance, and the Design Guidelines.
Upon hearing no further questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Tim Fletcher, the applicant, was present. He stated that he had no intention of violating any laws or ordinance when the fence was installed. He said that he liked the fence and it provided the needed security. Mr. Fletcher said that he would do whatever the Historic Landmark Commission requires of him, but hope that the Commissioners would take into consideration that he has tried to renovate the property.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen led the discussion by asking about the life expectancy of vinyl fencing. Mr. Fletcher believed that it would be about 10 years. He said that he was taking down a tree in the front yard and a branch fell on his car and the fence. Mr. Fletcher said that it damaged the car but it did no damage to the fence; it seems to be very durable. He said that it is a good fence. Mr. Fletcher added that if he would have known that vinyl was against the zoning ordinance, he would not have used that material. He said that it was his mistake. Mr. Knight said that he thought the vinyl fence manufacturers put a 20-year guarantee on the fences. Ms. Mickelsen talked about some neighbors of the Fletchers who did not like the vinyl fence, but never filed a complaint.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session:
Ms. Rowland said that there has to be a mechanism when someone purchases a house, there is something in the paperwork acknowledging that the buyers were aware that the house is in an historic district. Mr. Knight said that Ms. Lisa Miller, who was a previous member of the Historic Landmark Commission staff, worked with the County Recorder's office successfully to have the historic district notification recorded. He pointed out that there is currently a recorded notice on the title of buildings in historic districts and landmark sites. He added that staff receives calls from prospective buyers routinely asking what that meant. Ms. Rowland said that there is nothing that the buyer signs acknowledging that notification. Mr. Knight said that title companies notify prospective buyers. He added that in the case of the Fletcher's, they bought the house on a contract and did not have to go through a title company.
After being asked about the penalties placed on the property, Mr. Knight explained that after the owners are notified, they have 30 days to remove the fence and after that they would be fined $50.00 per day.
A short discussion took place regarding the sheen on vinyl fences, especially at night when headlights shine on them. Mr. Littig thought the subject fence looked better than most. Mr. Knight said that a vinyl solid panel fence is a lot more visually intrusive than a picket fence. Mr. Simonsen said that he encouraged the owner to landscape by planting something that would grow on the fence so the sheen would not be so visible. Mr. Ashdown said that painting a wood fence with high gloss paint would also reflect the light.
The discussion turned to the possibility of the vinyl fence being "grand fathered" in on the property where a future owner believes that the fence could be replaced with another vinyl fence. Mr. Parvaz suggested working the motion in such a way where that possibility would not happen. Some other legalization cases were discussed.
Mr. Wilson expressed his concern about allowing the vinyl fence to remain because of the idea that property owners may think that it is easier to legalize a vinyl fence after it is installed, rather than risking a denial by obtaining a permit.
Ms. Giraud said that she agreed with Mr. Wilson, however there are cases, such as with the Fletchers, where the buyers did not know about the historic district and the prohibited materials. She said that her point was, "What is in the best interest for the University Historic District." Ms. Giraud stated that the Commission has to look at how the vinyl fence relates to the architecture of the house, and how staff should handle future inquiries.
Ms. Rowland noted that fencing was a temporary element. Mr. Christensen agreed and said that he would rather spend more time on permanent historic features, such as doors and windows, because once they are removed they are gone forever.
The wording of the motion was discussed.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved to approve the legalization of Case No. 001-02, based on staff's findings of fact and recommendation. The approval is also based on the following: 1) there have been no complaints filed about the fence in the last 3-1/2 years since installation; 2) the fence complies with the Design Guidelines in terms of openness and it is not a solid fence; 3) it is a low 3-foot fence; 4) the fence is not a permanent element on the site and can be removed without detriment to the existing property; and 5) any request for vinyl fencing in the future should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid was not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 002-02, at 613-615 East 500 South. by Total Property Asset Management, L.L.C., represented by Doug Holmberg, requesting the initial review of an application for economic hardship to demolish the duplex. and the selection of a person to serve on the Economic Review Panel to represent the Historic Landmark Commission and the City. The property is located in the Central City Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented the following memorandum that she authored: "Total Property Asset Management, represented by Doug Holmberg, is requesting the selection of a person to serve on the Economic Review Panel to represent the Historic Landmark Commission and the City regarding the proposed demolition of the duplex at 613-615 East 500 South. I have spoken with Robert Springmeyer, who represented the Historic Landmark Commission on the Economic Review Panel for the Orpheum Theater (Promised Valley Theater at 132 South State Street) last summer. Although the outcome for the theater was not what I hoped, Mr. Springmeyer did a fine job representing the Historic Landmark Commission. I recommend that the Commission choose him for this case, unless the members have other suggestions. Mr. Springmeyer will not be available on January 10 through the 16, and during the Olympics. Schedules are determined by the panel members, and by the availability of Room 126." A copy of the memorandum was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff regarding the application for economic hardship.
Ms. Rowland stated that the analysis submitted by the applicant includes a figure for negative cash 11ow during the period after the owners purchased and boarded the building. She said that she believed that any negative cash flow that is derived from buildings, that are empty, should not be included in the financial analysis, because it was the owner's decision to board the buildings. Ms. Giraud inquired if there was something more specific that she would like to be included in the requirements. Ms. Rowland said that she believed it should be done like a proforma, that someone would buy the building, renovate it, then start projecting for three years for cash flow.
Since there were no further questions for staff, Mr. Parvaz asked the applicant to address the Commission.
Mr. Doug Holmberg, the applicant, who was present, stated that he was with Total Property Asset Management, and that he has been hired to go through the economic hardship process for the subject property.
Mr. Parvaz 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 investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a property that has no available parking does not seem to be a wise thing to do. Mr. Holmberg said that the investment was not made with the idea that the duplex would remain. Mr. Ashdown said that he would like to recommend to the Economic Review Panel that it be made clear that the owners purchased the property in the beginning planning to demolish the building and that there was no intent to restore or renovate the property. He said that information is not stated in the letter accompanying the economic hardship application.
• Mr. Simonsen inquired about the parking issues. Mr. Holmberg said that he researched the availability of the parking and the results are stated in the letter. The discussion continued on the parking issues.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused the applicant and opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session:
Mr. Parvaz said that it is not up to the Historic Landmark Commission to determine the issues surrounding the economic hardship application; it is the responsibility of the Economic Review Panel. He said that there were two issues for the Commission to ponder, sending the case to the Economic Review Panel, and the other one is selecting a representative to serve on the panel. Mr. Parvaz said that if a member of the Commission finds a problem with the information, it could be returned to the applicant for refinement.
Mr. Christensen said that he was happy that the applicant was taking advantage of the 40% tax credits. There were other questions regarding some of the data. Ms. Giraud asked for any other recommendations for the panel member to represent the Historic Landmark Commission.
Motion on the economic hardship packet of information:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 002-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the packet of information provided by the applicant is adequate to represent the issues.
The discussion continued. Ms. Rowland said that they should include a pro forma with three years of cash flow from the time that they put in a purchase cost or a renovation cost and also a pro forma with three years of cash flow with that renovated use. Mr. Christensen amended the motion.
First amended motion on the economic hardship packet of information:
Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 002-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the packet of information provided by the applicant is adequate to represent the issues, with the addition of additional information as requested by Ms. Rowland and that the purchaser of the property planned to demolish the building and had no intention to restore or renovate the property. In addition, the Historic Landmark Commission invites Mr. Robert Springmeyer to represent the Commission on the Economic Review Panel for the economic hardship request for the duplex at 613-615 East 500 South.
Mr. Simonsen asked if the selection of a representative could be made in a separate motion because he would like to discuss the nomination of Mr. Springmeyer. Mr. Christensen accepted that recommendation.
Second amended final motion on the economic hardship packet of information.: Mr. Christensen moved for Case No. 002-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the packet of information provided by the applicant is adequate to represent the issues, with the addition of additional information as requested by Ms. Rowland and that the purchaser of the property planned to demolish the building and had no intention to restore or renovate the property. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig abstained. Ms. Heid was not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed
Mr. Simonsen stated that he had recommended Robert Springmeyer for previous Economic Review Panel. He said that Mr. Springmeyer is an economic planner and has much experience in theaters, but he did not how much experience he has had with home renovations. Mr. Simonsen said that he did not want approve Mr. Springmeyer if there was another nomination. There was some discussion regarding additional nominations.
Motion on the representative for the Historic Landmark Commission:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 002-02 to approve a slate of four nominations, to represent the Historic Landmark Commission and the City, to serve on the Economic Review Panel for the duplex at 613-615 East 500 South. The nominations are Robert Springmeyer, Sandra Hatch, Doug Stephens, and Allen Roberts. At staff's discretion, staff is to make the contact and approve one of the nominations. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid was not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed
OTHER BUSINESS
Resignation of a member of the Commission:
Ms. Giraud let it be known that Madga Jakovcev-Ulrich found it necessary to resign from the Historic Landmark Commission due to her busy schedule. In behalf of the Commission, Mr. Parvaz extended his appreciation to Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich for the years she has served on the Commission.
Economic hardship review:
Ms. Giraud announced that the recent Economic Review Panel voted two to one in favor of not granting the applicant an economic hardship for the Juel Apartment Building. She said that the panel's findings would be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission at the January 31, 2002 meeting.
Citizens' Merit Awards Ceremony:
Ms. Giraud reminded the Commissioners of the Citizen's Merit Awards Ceremony that would be held on Wednesday, January 16, 2002 in the City and County Building at 5:30 P.M.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting. No second is required. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30P.M.