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 Susan Deal, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Robert Young, and Elizabeth Giraud.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Thomas Cerruti, William Damery, Susan Deal, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, and Robert Young. Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, and Lynn Morgan were excused.
Present from the Preservation Planning Staff was Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planner. William T. Wright, Planning Director, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Susan Deal. Ms. Deal announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She said that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the presented information.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Ms. Deal recognized the members of the Commission who were on the field trip. Those members, who were unable to make the field trip, made it known that they were familiar with the sites.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes of November 19, 1997, as amended. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, and Mr. Morgan were not present. Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes of December 3, 1997, as amended. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, and Mr. Morgan were not present. Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
As there was no quorum present, on December 17, 1997, no meeting was held, therefore, no minutes were recorded and a statement of explication was filed.
NEW CASES
Case No. 001-98. by Post Office Place Associates. represented by Byron Barkley. requesting to list the Odd Fellows Building at 39 W. Market Street on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud said that since this application would require a zoning map amendment, it would need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission before going to the City Council for approval.
The applicant, Mr. Byron Barkley, was present. He stated that he concurred with the staff report and that he would respond to any questions from the Commission.
As there were no questions, concerns, or comments that were made by the Historic Landmark Commission, Ms. Deal opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Deal closed the hearing to the public.
Executive Session
No discussion followed.
Mr. Young moved to accept the findings of fact by the Staff and to approve forwarding the recommendation to the Planning Commission that the Odd Fellows Building, located at 39 W. Market Street, be included on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. It was seconded by Mr. Cerruti. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, and Mr. Morgan were not present. Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 002-98, by Lance Duffield of Back Oak Development requesting a review of a new construction project at 661-665 South 500 East of four town homes.
Ms. Elizabeth Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She said that the Staff was not making a recommendation at this meeting. Ms. Giraud said that the purpose for this item being placed on the agenda, at this time, was to receive comments from the Commission for the new construction project. She pointed out that the proposed design did not meet some zoning issues, but these discrepancies could be waived through the Planned Development process. Ms. Giraud said that because of the design issues in this case, the Staff determined that the Historic Landmark Commission would review the application first. She continued by saying that this Commission could have a great effect on the proposal. Photographs were circulated among the members of the proposed site for the project.
The applicant, Mr. Lance Duffield, was present. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the planned project. Mr. Duffield indicated that the two lots would be combined and presented as one single parcel. He talked about the access easement that had been obtained from adjacent property owners. Mr. Duffield explained that the object of the proposal was to make the project look like four single-family units rather than a large multi-family structure. He said that he wanted the proposal to blend in with the neighborhood, which comprised mostly of pre-World War II single-family homes.
Mr. Duffield addressed the project in the following manner: (1) each unit would be approximately 1,400 to 1,600 square feet; (2) front entries would be facing 500 East; (3) the garages would be on the back of the property with access off of Gallagher Place to the north; (4) even with the proposed setback, there would be twelve feet of planting strip between the sidewalk and the street on 500 East; (5) the exterior materials would be a 45-year glass composition roofing material and an earth-toned, sand-finished, stucco on the bulk of the exterior, for minimum maintenance, and to give the project a softer texture.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the proposed variance. Mr. Duffield stated that the only variance he was requesting was for the front yard setback; that the setbacks on that street were about twenty feet. He said because each unit would have a different setback, and if the average setback would be considered, then the project would comply with the zoning requirement. Ms. Deal expressed her concerns regarding the proposed design of the project by saying that it would be more indigenous to other sections of the valley, rather than in an historic district. She said that she believed it would not fit into the neighborhood because most of the structures were smaller and the scale and massing of the proposed structure would have an appearance of a very large new house. Ms. Deal also talked about the proposed materials and pointed out that most of the structures in the neighborhood were built out of brick. She also spoke of the window fenestration and questioned the use of a Palladian window style. Ms. Deal addressed the large block of asphalt that would be in the rear garage/parking area of the proposed project. She said that it would have a negative effect on the adjacent properties. Mr. Duffield said that vehicle access had to be available. Ms. Deal suggested that the applicant review ways of dividing the large asphalt area into smaller sections.
• Ms. Mitchell made a reference to the "Cool Communities" guide that she said could be obtained from the State of Utah. She pointed out that it may be helpful to the applicant with the design of the parking area. Ms. Mitchell said that reducing the asphalt would mitigate the heat gain problems.
• Mr. Young also suggested using a product called "Grass Crete" which was a slab of concrete with open sections that would allow grass to grow through it, giving an appearance of a grassy area. He said that also it might improve the problems that would be created 'from water run-off.
• Mr. Cerruti asked about the existing large pine trees on the site. Mr. Duffield said that they would be removed because they would be in the building area of the proposed project. Mr. Cerruti also inquired about the other existing trees on the site, which Mr. Duffield said were Russian Olives. Mr. Duffield said that he was concerned that all trees had not been maintained over the years and suffered much stom1 damage. The age of the trees was discussed and no one knew how old they were. Mr. Duffield indicated that he would be willing to have the trees inspected to find out their condition. Mr. Littig also questioned the removal of the pine trees.
• Mr. Littig spoke of the possibility of having a flat roof on the structure rather than a gable roof. He said that most multi-unit buildings in the area had 11at roofs. A short discussion took place where other flat-roofed buildings were located in the area. Mr. Littig said that he was concerned that this proposed design would be an introduction to the neighborhood, as there were no other stucco buildings with the same kind of character. He further said that he was concerned about the roof line. Mr. Duffield said that he had considered other designs which would have more massing to the structure, but said he was trying to minimize the massing and thought the proposed design would be more amiable with the neighboring properties.
• Mr. Gordon questioned the setback requirement and inquired why the project was not proposed to be constructed further back from the sidewalk. Mr. Duffield said that was considered by an alternative design which would have met all zoning requirements, but would have changed the look of the building. He said that it would have given the structure a row-house, boxy, look with a straight, flat front facade. Mr. Duffield said that he would consider other designs if they would lend themselves more to other structures in the neighborhood. The discussion continued.
• Mr. Damery inquired about the observations from the Central City Community Council. Mr. Duffield stated that he wanted to have feedback from this Commission before he pursued that process.
• Mr. Wright pointed out that the Planned Development approach, where the setback requirements would be waived, was not the same as requesting a variance where one would have to declare a hardship due to the shape of a property. He said that it was more like allowing flexibility that would provide a better design solution. He further said that the Planning Commission would be looking and taking into account the reaction from this Commission regarding the design issues.
The discussion continued regarding the concept that the Historic Landmark Commission had the purview to maintain the integrity of an entire historic district, and not just a property site. Mr. Duffield stated that it was his notion to break up the front facade so the proposed structure would not look like one massive building. Mr. Littig suggested that running the ridge lines from front to back would also breakup the massing. Mr. Duffield said that he was receptive to the idea of exploring other concepts of the design and would consider the comments that had been made by the Commission. Ms. Deal further discussed the scale and massing of the planned project and suggested that it might be in the applicant's best interest to build a scale model of the project which would better show the massing.
The discussion turned to the orientation of the original buildings on the two lots and other matters relating to this property site.
Ms. Deal opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Evan Barrow, who resides at 640 South 500 East, stated that he was the Vice Chair of the Central City Community Council. Mr. Barrow said that he was opposed to the removal of the existing trees on the property site because the big pine trees were an enhancement to the neighborhood. He said that the concept of constructing a building which had a "row house" look would be appealing, because there were other row houses in the area that were very nice. Mr. Barrow also said that big, brick, blocky, flat-topped buildings were the ·favor of the neighborhood.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Ms. Deal closed the hearing to public comment.
Mr. Duffield inquired into the process of receiving further direction from the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Deal responded by saying that he could meet with the Architectural Subcommittee to discuss the details of the project and suggested that he talk to Ms. Giraud for scheduling.
Ms. Deal announced that since Mr. Duffield's project was only being discussed at this meeting, a decision would not be rendered by the Historic Landmark Commission, at this time.
Case No. 003-98. by Art Brothers. represented by Paula Carl. Architect. requesting approval to construct a new single-family house at 39 No. "Q" Street.
• Ms. Elizabeth Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the Staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She gave a brief history of the applicant's property, which was included in the staff report. Ms. Giraud said that because of the shape of the lot, the orientation of the proposed house had been changed from facing east on Q Street to facing north on First Avenue. She said that although the Historic Landmark Commission did not generally regulate color, the Commission had the right to regulate color of permanent materials, such as brick or stucco. Revised drawings were passed to the members.
The applicant, Mr. Art Brothers, as well as his representative, Ms. Paula Carl, was present. Mr. Brothers stated that he agreed with the staff report. He said that his only question was what brick color to choose. Mr. Brothers talked about the colors of brick that were used on the surrounding houses. Samples of brick material and colors were displayed. Mr. Brothers indicated that he had no preference to a brick color, as he discussed the variety of colors offered on the display board. Ms. Carl also discussed the colors of the brick.
Ms. Carl articulated the changes on the revised drawings, such as the following: (1) the front door fenestration, from double doors to a single door; (2) most windows from casement to double-hung, where it seemed appropriate; (3) the height of the railing was incorrect on the drawings and would be reduced to the standard height; and (4) an east side yard patio, which would be surrounded by a wrought iron fence with plantings that would shield the hard surface of the road.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by comparing the elevations. She said that she originally had reservations about changing the orientation of the proposed building, but had changed her mind. She said she believed it was more important to have the front facade on the First Avenue side and that it would fit into the streetscape. Ms. Carl added that due to the shape of the lot, there would be more usable yard space with that proposed orientation. Ms. Deal talked about the taper of the proposed fireplace chimney that appeared on the east elevation drawing. Mr. Brothers noted that it would be a gas log fireplace, vented at the top. Mr. Young said that there could be a smaller taper, which would be beneficial for a small area. It was pointed out by Ms. Deal that the Commission would like to see more detail on some of the elements, such as the fence and the porch railings.
• Mr. Gordon spoke of a proposed color for the exterior brick, referencing the red brick color. Mr. Brothers talked about the availability of the variety of colors for red brick. Ms. Deal said that red brick would be a contemporary color, but would still maintain its dignity. The discussion continued. Ms. Carl pointed out that the exterior trim would be white if red brick was selected. The color of dark red was selected and Mr. Brothers was in agreement with the color. The fencing material was also discussed. Mr. Gordon inquired about the material for the lintels and Ms. Carl said that it would be either precast concrete or stone. Mr. Gordon discussed the depth of the front steps, pointing out that they were shallow. Ms. Carl said that they had to be shallow due to the setback requirements. Ms. Carl talked about the possibility of requesting a variance.
• Mr. Littig inquired about an area for plantings so foliage could grow on the fence. Mr. Brothers indicated that there would be enough space. Types of grass and foliage were discussed.
• Mr. Wright talked about the fence height which would be allowable in the zoning ordinance. He said that the fence could be as high as six feet on a corner side yard. Mr. Wright advised the applicant that a four-foot high fence would be more appropriate. He said that he had not seen too many successes with a six-foot fence for a side yard usage.
• Ms. Mitchell inquired if the revised drawings took precedent, because she said that she liked the detailing that was added to the front entrance and facade. Ms. Deal indicated that the revised drawings would be considered when the Commission rendered a decision on the project.
• Ms. Giraud asked about the material for the coursing band. Mr. Brothers said that it would be stone.
Ms. Deal opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Mike McGinley, who resides at 26 No. Q Street, stated that he wanted to encourage the process to move rapidly towards a solution because the current situation was neither appealing nor acceptable. He said that he appreciated the Historic Landmark Commission wanting to preserve the historic and unique character of the Avenues. Mr. McGinley said that he had no objection to a fence on the east elevation, but was but was not in favor of a six-foot high fence.
• Mr. Mitch Rouda, who resides at 27 No. Q Street, said that if the applicant would be allowed to change the orientation of the proposed house to face First Avenue, his house would become isolated because it would be the only house on the west side that would face Q Street. He said that he thought that orientation would be a mistake and hurt the fabric of the neighborhood. Mr. Rouda also talked about a rapid solution due to the dilapidated condition of Mr. Brothers' property. He said that he believed Mr. Brothers' house could easily have been restored by someone who cared about the neighborhood. He said that the house had been intentionally neglected and he did not believe that was a qualification for demolition.
Mr. Rouda said that he had never been informed throughout Mr. Brothers' appeal process, although his was an adjacent property. He said that he found out about the meeting from another source. He stated that he had changed his travel plans to be at the appeals hearing, then found out at 5:00P.M., on the day of the meeting, that it had been rescheduled for the following week. Mr. Rouda said that he could not change his plans again and believed that it had been an "intentional subterfuge and a denial of the public's right to comment on the appeal". He talked further about the Appeals Board who went against the recommendation of the Staff, of this Commission, and of the neighbors, when the Board decided that Mr. Brothers' house was not contributing. Mr. Rouda stated that Mr. Brothers' house was like, in kind, to about thirty percent of the stock of houses in the Avenues, and asked if all houses of similar stock were no longer considered to be contributing structures. He further said that if Mr. Brothers' house was different, then he would like to know what was different about it, other than intentional neglect by the owner. Ms. Deal said that the appeal did not say that other houses of this age and type were not contributing, the Appeals Board said that the Historic Landmark Commission did not hear all the evidence about the applicant's house and the appeal only dealt with Mr. Brothers' house. Mr. Rouda said that he was never informed of the results of the Appeals Board hearing, so there had not been an opportunity to appeal the Appeals Board's decision. Mr. Rouda added that he had discussed this matter with several staff members. He also talked about the City's inaction to enforcement issues on Mr. Brothers' property, after eleven telephone calls to the City, and called it a "disgrace".
Mr. Rouda concluded by saying that a solution should be expedited with assurance that the house would not be demolished before the plans for the new house were approved. Ms. Deal said that the Historic Landmark Commission had the power to do that. She said the applicant had been told that the existing house could not be demolished until he had a permit for the new construction, and the process was moving forward at this time. Mr. Rouda stated that he hoped the setback requirements would be enforced.
Mr. Cerruti asked Mr. Wright to follow-up on the enforcement issues. Mr. Wright said that he would. He cautioned the members that the property owner could contest the enforcement until the time that demolition would occur. Mr. Young inquired about a City ordinance that would require the property owner to remove the snow from the sidewalks after a certain period of time. Mr. Wright said that there was an ordinance which would applied to all properties, whether they were boarded or not, or occupied or unoccupied.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Ms. Deal closed the hearing to the public.
Executive Session
A discussion followed. Mr. Cerruti indicated that he was still confused about what the legal posture was on this case and asked if Mr. Wright could forward a memorandum to the Commission outlining a synopsis regarding the applicant's property and where the City was, procedurally and legally, on this matter. Mr. Cerruti also discussed the demolition and the re-use plan proposal. Mr. Wright said that at the hearing, the Appeals Board did not overturn the demolition process, but that the house was considered a non-contributing, rather than a contributing, structure. Mr. Wright said that due to the result of the Board's decision, the approval for demolition would become an administrative decision. Mr. Wright said that he wanted to make certain that the applicant's re-use plan would be acceptable before an approval for demolition was rendered and a permit issued. The discussion continued regarding this matter.
Mr. Young commented on the possibility of isolating the house at 27 Q Street. He said with a little work, architecturally, the detailing of the east elevation and the side entrance, could present a continuity on that street.
The discussion turned to the orientation of the proposed house, the reduction of the amount of cement to be used for the driveway approach, and the appropriate language for the motion. Several members expressed his/her opinion of the important details that should be included in the motion.
Mr. Cerruti moved that Case No. 003-98 be tabled and the applicant be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for further review. He also moved that the issues dealing with the fence, rail, post, garage, side entrance, driveway, and chimney be addressed to conform to the comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission at this meeting, and then the applicant return to the full Commission for ·final approval. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, Ms. Devine, and Mr. Morgan were not present. Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
As there was no other business, Ms. Deal asked for a motion to conclude this meeting.
Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Mr. Gordon. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:40 P.M.