SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Rob McFarland, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, and Dina Williams. Thomas Buese, Burke Cartwright, William Damery, and Heidi Swinton were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Brent B. Wilde, Deputy Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Supervisor, Elizabeth Egleston, and Lisa Miller. Janice Jardine, representing the City Council Office, was also present, as well as Lynn Pace, representing the City Attorney's Office.
The meeting was called to order at 4:10 P.M. by Chairperson, Wallace Cooper. Mr. Cooper announced that each item will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed to the public and the Commission will make a decision based on the information presented.
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. Miya moved to approve the minutes of December 4, 1996. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Buese, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Damery, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Wright addressed the organizational Staff changes that had occurred in the Planning Division and introduced Mr. Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, who will be responsible for a section of the Staff that will include the Historic Landmark Commission preservation issues, environmental issues, and contract planning. He said that Mr. Paterson will be attending the meetings on a regular basis.
Mr. Wright introduced Mr. Lynn Pace from the City Attorney's Office, who is often assigned to land use planning issues, as well as other matters. Mr. Pace will be able to ass1ist the Historic Landmark Commission with pertinent information on legal issues.
Mr. Pace said that he had been working on the legal issues surrounding the owner's request to demolish the Imperial Apartments at 454 E. South Temple. He said that he was asked to attend this meeting to present an overview of what had transpired since the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed this matter. Mr. Pace said that in March of 1995, there was an application for a demolition permit filed with the Historical Landmark Commission, and several hearings were held before this body. He added that there has been no action on this property until recently because the property owner sent a letter to the City Attorney's Office asking for a legal opinion that had been promised or referred to at some point.
Mr. Pace said that the City Attorney's Office issued a legal opinion, based upon the available information. He reported the following:
"It appears that the application, that was filed in March of 1995, was not complete which occurred after the enactment of the new Zoning Ordinance in April of 1995. Based on information that the office had, the application should be processed under that new Zoning Ordinance. Subsequent to that opinion, the Zoning Administrator issued a letter regarding the completeness of the application, as required under the City Ordinance, which gave the applicant the option of submitting additional information. If the applicant chose not to take that option, a notice for another hearing, under the new Zoning Ordinance, before this Commission would be issued. The applicant, as of this date, has not submitted a new application or additional information. The applicant, however, has scheduled a meeting for tomorrow morning (January 9, 1997) to assess the matter. The City is waiting for input as to how the applicant would like the City Attorney's Office to proceed."
Mr. Pace continued by saying that he believed there were two issues relating to the completeness of the original application. One was the landscaping plan and the other had to do with whether or not the application had to have information regarding the feasibility of rehabilitation. Mr. Pace said that in his legal opinion, he has not seen any information about feasibility. He said that under the present Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator has the authority to determine completeness of applications.
Mr. Pace explained that during the moratorium adopted by the City Council, there was an interim period where neither the old Zoning Ordinance, prior to October 1994, nor the new Zoning Ordinance, after April 1995, was in effect. He said that from the minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings, it became apparent that the City, the Commission, as well as the applicant, acknowledged that the landscaping plan, which accompanied the application, was inadequate. Mr. Pace said that the applicant submitted a modified landscaping plan, but due to the scheduling of the meetings, could not appear before this body until after the new Zoning Ordinance was in effect. In conclusion, Mr. Pace said that under the old Zoning Ordinance, the Commission could only delay a demolition request for twelve months, but under the new Zoning Ordinance, the Commission could deny it, and indicated that it was up to the applicant which way the City would proceed. A short discussion followed.
Request by the Salt Lake City Planning Division Staff to approve "Draft No. 3 of the Salt Lake City Design Guidelines. with modifications.
Ms. Egleston presented a brief overview of the staff report by saying that the proposed changes were suggested by the Commission members at a previous meeting, and she encouraged further comments and suggestions, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Egleston urged the Commission to adopt this draft, with changes, because there was a briefing scheduled with the City Council on January 23, 1997, and Mr. Nore' Winter, the consultant, was planning to attend. She asked members of the Commission to also attend the meeting. There was a short discussion regarding the briefing.
Mr. Cooper opened the discussion 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:
• Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, stated that she found the guidelines very interesting and an important tool to help educate the public about preservation. She said that currently she was involved with the master plan for the Capitol Hill District and she felt that it was important to have the Design Standards in place to use as a reference to address specific architectural elements. Ms. Mangold stated that she thought that the Design Standards would be a very valuable document and hoped the Commission approves the draft.
• Mr. Joe Pitti, who resides at 325 No. Quince Street, stated that his house appeared in the Design Standards. He commented on the many former dilapidated, unattended rented houses in the area that have been transformed into wonderful homes. Mr. Pitti said that people who have moved into the area in the last few years have really put a lot of time and effort into their properties. He said that he supported the guidelines and encouraged the Commission to adopt them because he thought the document would educate the public and protect the neighborhood.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the Commission, Mr. Cooper closed the discussion to the public.
As the Commission analyzed the staff report and the accompanying submittal offered by Mr. Cooper, of copy of which was filed with the minutes, following additional comments were made regarding Draft No. 3 of the Design Standards for Salt Lake City:
Due to the fact that the members on the Historic Landmark Commission is continually changed, was it necessary to list the names of the current members, was the question that arose. It was pointed out that the acknowledgment should be given to the people who were seated on the Commission when the vote was taken, and former members who worked towards developing the document should also be recognized. The Commission members expressed comfort with that conclusion.
• The section regarding metal roofs ought to be worded to allow the Commission to review requests on a case by case basis and should address standing seam metal roofs.
• The photograph on top of Page 24 should be changed and a better example of the classic style vernacular piece of architecture be used.
• Remove the middle photograph on Page 26 and focus on an element of Gothic
Revival.
• Add an example of details from the Second Empire on Page 28.
• On Page 30, a grid has been established and the guidelines violate that grid in a number of places. The photographs should be larger showing the details.
• On Page 38, clapboard shingles is not the proper term.
• There is no photograph depicting the ranch style on Page 46. Another photograph of the multi-family structure should be used because different elevations of that same building is shown in other places in the document.
• On Page 58, the photograph in the middle of the page, implies that it is an original fence. Either a photograph of another example of an original fence, wood or wrought iron, be used or change the caption under the photograph in Section 1.2.
• A sentence in the first paragraph on the "Background" section on Page 61, should be changed to the following: "Wood siding occurred, in a variety of forms but painted, drop or novelty siding was the most popular." The explanation was offered that clapboard is a tapered board that laps one over the top of the other and novelty siding is where the board is applied vertically and notched over the piece of siding below. It was pointed out that many brick and clapboard structures were filled with adobe.
• Improvement is needed on the graphics on Page 62. They are not of the same quality as sketches elsewhere in the document.
• The captions are identical on Pages 76 and 77. One needs to be changed.
• The detailing on the house in the top photograph on Page 89 implies that it is original and apparently it is not. Either use another example of original detailing or change the caption.
• The photograph on Page 103 should be replaced with another example of appropriate-looking material for the scale and type of house. There are very few slate roofs in the districts. Clarification was needed in the paragraph in Section 7.6. This paragraph was not clear whether or not asphalt shingles with deep shadow lines were encouraged, since those shingles were designed to imitate the random pattern and look of a wood roof. There is room for more photographs on this page, such as showing appropriate and inappropriate, or positive examples. A discussion took place regarding architectural-grade shingles, asphalt shingles, tile and imitation tile roofs. The subject was introduced of the style of house that was depicted in the photograph. It is a bungalow with a Tudor variation and many people call it a Tudor style and want to impose heavy shingles and board and batten-type detailing to the exterior. Since they are very modest houses, they get overpowered if they are not allowed to have very simple details on the exterior.
• On Page 105 and throughout the document, photographs of out-of-state structures are shown and should be replaced with photographs of houses found in the historic districts of Salt Lake City, which would make them accessible to the public.
• Another positive example of an appropriate addition should replace the existing photograph on Page 105. A concern was expressed that it was difficult to articulate in design guidelines that the richness of texture of the architecture in the historic districts is the result of the contradiction of styles that exist. The document is the first educational step so one can see the variations within that fabric of the districts.
• There was some contradiction in the caption on Page 108 under the photograph in Section 8.3 and the information presented in Section 8.6 on Page 109. It was also pointed out that the use of the statement, "do not", was perhaps too strong. Referring to the last sentence in Section 8.6 on Page 109, it should be clarified that any alteration would cover some feature of the building. Perhaps the statement and the caption under the photograph need to be expanded.
• The first sentence in Section 8.13 on Page 111 is awkward and needs to be changed. Also the caption under the middle photograph needs to be changed because it contradicts the fact that materials used on an exterior of an addition needed to be differentiated from the original structure.
• Pages 113 and 114 address accessory structures. A discussion took place regarding garages. There is a strong pattern in the Avenues and Capitol Hill districts of garages that exist on the street due to the topography. The bottom photograph on Page 114 depicts that pattern and should be referenced in the commentary. The discussion turned to accessory buildings and the Zoning Ordinance not allowing those buildings to be converted to studios and other living area extensions. The Zoning Ordinance is inflexible pertaining to home occupations preventing the conversion of accessory buildings into workshops that would be an annoyance in the neighborhood. It was suggested that those sections of the Zoning Ordinance be reconsidered for the prevention of permanent hardships for accessory buildings in historic districts that are not feasible to use. The discussion turned to the carriage houses on South Temple which had been restored and individualized before the new Zoning Ordinance. Other examples in historic districts were cited.
• The concept of "platforming" is missing throughout the design guidelines. It was noted that just about every house in the Avenues and Capitol Hill Districts, up until the 1950's when the ranch style became popular, sits on an architectural platform. It 1is usually about three or four feet off the ground. It did not exist in vernacular architecture but during the Victorian era, the platform concept was a very strong design element, and the porch being a predominant part. A platform is an architectural element rather than a site element.
• Controversy with the top photograph on Page 125. The Commission was not concerned about offending the architect, but the fact that when the photograph is used as a contemporary piece of architecture, it is used as a negative example. There are better examples of homes in the districts of contemporary styles that could be used. The document shou1ld encourage positive examples of contemporary architecture. The middle photograph depicts an attached garage which creates an overall proportion that is out of character with the district. The standards discuss the development of garages as accessory structures, then the only example blasts a piece of contemporary architecture where the garage is part of the facade. That photograph should be changed.
• The top photograph on Page 126 is out of character and should state that the structure is inappropriate in the caption. A more appropriate example needs to be used as a replacement photograph.
• There either needs to be a better photograph on Page 127 than the existing one or the caption needs to clarify which element the caption is criticizing or praising.
• It was pointed out that in the Zoning Ordinance, there is a preference for drought tolerant indigenous plant materials. Drought tolerant plants were not a concern when the historic districts were landscaped. Each area has a diverse architecture and the landscaping of mature trees, shrubs, and other foliage is the strongest unifying element in the districts. the members were concerned how this section of the Zoning Ordinance might be interpreted because cactus and other desert plants in the front yards of the homes would not be appropriate in historic districts in Salt Lake City. Paragraph 12.8 on Page 134 should be eliminated.
• On Page 144, there is a comment about the appropriateness of scale and using elements that are appropriately sca1led for the structures. The Mannerist movement around 1500 was based on exaggerated details. Michael Angelo's "David" is an example of exaggeration. The bottom photograph is an example of an architectural element being exaggerated. The idea of exaggeration is an architectural tool that can be used in the right way. The example in the photograph depicts the exaggerated detailing.
• There is an opportunity for another photograph on Page 149. A discussion took place that the statement appearing in the middle of that page is the one of the best statements in the entire document. "Within the Avenues District, a range of architectural style exists, which results in a variety of building forms. The large number of Victorian-era structures in the area had established a precedence for construction of buildings with irregular forms and a profusion of wall planes and details." That commentary was an absolute description of the Avenues District and the photograph on Page 150 shows that and on Page 149, rather than the classic vernacular, show another example of a Victorian-era structure.
• The wording of the first sentence under the section on characteristics on Page 150 should reflect that there are very few sandstone sidewalks remaining except around the Brigham Young grave site on First Avenue. It implies that sandstone sidewalks as a strong characteristic in the Avenues where concrete is primarily used.
• The wording in the commentary needs to be changed on page 161 to reflect that there is no historic scale in the Capitol Hill Historic District because there is everything from one-story buildings to high rise multi-family units. Perhaps change it from historic scale to residential.
• The first sentence in the last bullet on Page 163 needs to be corrected. Street landscaping is not minimal. There are plantings close to the street throughout the districts, but is more predominant in the Avenues area. Perhaps say "formal street landscaping is minimal."
• Section 13.12 on Page 164 refers to the possibility of expanding the Capitol Hill Historic District, which is being considered. Comments were made that in the area west of the Capitol Hill District is a community that the City should be considering the creation of another historic district rather than making that area an extension of Capitol Hill, due to the intact fine vernacular architecture that exists.
In conclusion, Mr. Cerruti commented that there had been a great deal of work done on these Design Standards and extended an appreciation to Mr. Cooper for the extensive review which has been very helpful. He requested that the minutes reflect his appreciation. Others agreed.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Design Standards for Salt Lake City, Draft No.3, with the appropriate changes that were discussed at this meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Miya. Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Miya, and Mr. Morgan unanimously voted “Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Mr. Buese, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Damery, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.
A discussion took place regarding copies of an article by Allen Freeman circulated to the members, entitled, "The Compatibility Question. Do historic districts dictate mediocre contemporary design?" which appeared in Preservation News, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Egleston stated that she was present in one of Mr. Freeman's classes when she attended the National Trust conference and thought it was very interesting.
Ms. Deal asked to discuss the demolition which was administratively approved at 650- 654 E. Ely Place. A copy of the explanation by Ms. Egleston was mailed to each member of the Commission, a copy of which was also filed with the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Cooper agreed and said that this was the second demolition request since the adoption of the new Demolition Ordinance. Mr. Cooper explained that the building is a non-contributing structure, therefore Ms. Egleston had the right to make an administrative decision for a Certificate of Appropriateness. He added that the property was in a blighted neighborhood. Ms. Deal was concerned about the approval to demolish housing stock in an historic district. Ms. Egleston said that the owner was considering the development of a six-plex on the property, but the current proposal is for landscaping, only. Mr. Wright said that the demolition process is different in noncontributing structures than contributing structures, and invited any of the members to submit their comments if he or she has a serious question whether or not the subject property is a contributing or a non-contributing structure. He said that the applicant had posted a bond for the landscaping and the City should make sure that the property will be maintained and free from vehicular traffic. Mr. Cooper noted that there was a possibility if this building was in another historic district, the demolition would not be approved.
A discussion regarding the merits of demolition took place. It was suggested by some members that removing non-contributing buildings and replacing them with additional housing stock close to the downtown area was appealing and could be the remaking of a neighborhood over a period of time. Mr. Cooper stated that it was important to keep the neighborhoods vital and not let the City's districts or ordinances keep the City from revitalizing neighborhoods. Ms. Hatch talked about another area in another state where there is no historic context because new construction is made to replicate older buildings.
Mr. Cooper referred to the memorandum that was included in the member's packets regarding Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He requested that members of the Commission meet with the headmaster at Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School to discuss alternative to the demolition of the Caine and Rawlins houses on the Avenues campus on Thursday, January 9, 1997 at 8:00A.M. at the Jennings house which is located at 87 "8" Street. Mr. Cooper presented an overview of the demolition request. Mr. Cooper said that his role would not be to influence the Commission in the direction it would pursue. He said that he believed this to be a big issue and the Commission should be kept informed of the circumstances that surround this issue. When concern was expressed about the location of the meeting, Ms. Egleston reminded the Commission that is would be scheduled as an on-site Subcommittee meeting. Ms. Miller said that this meeting needed to be proactive and to suggest possible solutions to the school's classroom space problem.
Discussion of the Historic Landmark Commission's Awards Ceremony. Need to schedule a date and vote on the award recipients
Ms. Miller suggested two dates for the awards presentation and the members preferred the date of Wednesday, February 19, 1997. This will be discussed further at the next meeting on February 5, 1997.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:10 P.M.