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 Dina Blaes, Billie Ann Devine, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, and Robert Young. Susan Deal, Wayne Gordon, and Sarah Miller were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:07P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated 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 information presented. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Blaes asked members of the audience to tum their cellular telephones off.
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 July 1, 1998 meeting. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Owen were not present. The motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Case No. 017-98. at 650-654 E. Ely Place. by Shawn Lockwood. represented by Pam Wells. Architect. requesting to legalize and approve an addition.
Mr. Knight 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 of this meeting. Mr. Knight pointed out that the applicant applied for an in-line variance to allow the second story to line up with the walls of the original building. He said that the variance was approved by the Board of Adjustment on July 7, 1998. After Mr. Littig inquired, Mr. Knight clarified that the variance was granted on the west side of the building.
The applicant, Mr. Shawn Lockwood, and his representative, Ms. Pam Wells, were present. Ms. Wells said that the applicant moved the south wall of the second floor addition for structural reasons. It was pointed out by Ms. Wells, that this change was not shown on the submitted drawings. Ms. Wells added that the change would affect the size and locations of some of the proposed windows on the south elevation of the proposed structure. She said that the height of the second story, from the existing roofline to the new eaves, had been lowered from 8 feet to 5 Y2 feet. There was further discussion regarding the changes in the drawings. Revised drawings were circulated to the Staff and the members of the Commission, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Wells explained that the existing structure does not sit symmetrically on the property. She said that the west wall of the house is as close as 2 1/2 feet from the west property line. Ms. Wells added that the west plane of the addition would have to be recessed because the building code requires egress windows to be at least 4 feet from the property line.
Mr. Lockwood pointed out that when he purchased the property, he believed that the entire 10-foot driveway was part of the lot. He added that only 2 feet of that driveway is on his property.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Ms. Blaes led the discussion by inquiring about the bumped bay on the west elevation and the in-line variance. Ms. Wells said that there would be no protruding bays on the proposed structure. Ms. Giraud said that recessed bays, not being a typical feature of a structure of this type, was discussed in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting. The Subcommittee members felt that the recessed bays would be acceptable, given the requirements of the building code. She added that she believed that the recessed bay would be better than a blank wall on the west elevation.
• Mr. Littig asked about the open foundation area in the back of the structure. Ms. Wells said that there had been a shed addition on the 8-foot concrete slab in the back. She said that the space would become a covered patio area.
Ms. Wells continued by describing the details of the project, such as the decorative detail on the new exposed roof eaves, which would duplicate the detail found on the original building. She added that the eaves would also be exposed on the north and south walls of the addition, in order to break up the wall plane.
• Ms. Mitchell inquired about the window materials and the detail on the windows in the upper west elevation. She pointed out that one window was wider than the other. Ms. Wells said that the west windows would be recessed, in order to comply with the required setback. Ms. Wells said that she thought that it was appropriate to continue the slope of the roof up to where it would meet the recessed wall line. Ms. Wells remarked that she believed that this would be more aesthetically pleasing, and would also allow water to run off the roof instead of building up in the area inside the recessed bay.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A lengthy discussion followed. Mr. Littig expressed his concern that the 8-foot slab area, to be used for a covered patio, would not be filled-in at a later date. He inquired if there was any way this could be prevented.
Ms. Blaes said that the following statement by Mr. Littig should be on the record so that any future permits could reflect that data. Mr. Littig said that he did not believe that the scale and massing was the problem. He said that the history of the project had been the real problem to the City, as well as for the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Littig stated that he did not want to see someone being rewarded an additional 400 or 500 feet of building space who has had the record that this project has had, as was outlined in the previous staff reports. Ms. Blaes stated that she believed that the applicant had received a loud and clear message that this Commission was not pleased with the way his project came before us and hoped he would not continue in the same manner.
Ms. Blaes reminded the members of the Commission of the Staffs findings. She said that the Staff recommended that the Commission approve the plans, submitted by Ms. Wells, which were attached to the staff report, with the direction that she would provide final details, to be reviewed and approved by Staff. Ms. Blaes pointed out that she would feel comfortable if the Commission approved the massing solution and the design issues, but the submitted elevation drawings did not meet the basic requirements that the Historic Landmark Commission has held as a standard. She stated that details were lacking for the porch, materials, color of stucco, roofing materials, windows, and so on.
The subject of double-hung windows was discussed. Ms. Blaes said that the reduction of the exterior wall to cut the massing would not allow double-hung windows, as was discussed at the Subcommittee meeting. The Commission agreed to open the meeting to the public so Ms. Blaes could clarify a point of concern with the applicant or his representative. Ms. Wells said that the code requirement was that every bedroom had to have one egress window. She said that double-hung windows would not allow the size of window required for egress.
Mr. Giraud commented on other window changes on the revised drawings. She pointed out that the second story windows on the proposed east elevation were drawn as single panes. Ms. Wells reiterated that the proposed windows were changed due to the egress requirements and the wall sections. The window pattern continued to be discussed. Ms. Blaes expressed her concerns that the original window openings would not be retained, as was also discussed in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting.
Ms. Wells, referring to Mr. Littig's comments regarding the concrete area in the back, stated that the lack of lighting would prevent anyone from filling-in the covered patio area. She indicated that there would only be room for one small window and the room would be too dark.
Ms. Blaes reclosed this portion of the meeting to the public and the Commission continued with the executive session portion of the meeting.
The issue of the property being considered "non-contributing" was discussed. The question arose that if all the proposed changes were made to the existing structure, would it then be considered "contributing". Ms. Blaes said that the Commission had to consider the standards in the ordinance.
Ms. Blaes indicated that the level of detail had not been accepted in the past by the Commission and she did not want to set a precedent by approving the exact plans which were included in the staff report. She suggested that the motion needed to reflect the concerns of the members regarding the lack of details.
Ms. Blaes further said that she needed a clarification on the following Staffs findings on Page 4 of the staff report: "The existing proportion of openings and the rhythm of solids and voids in the facades of the second story are not visually compatible with the surrounding structures" She asked if that was written prior to receiving the revised drawings that were submitted to the members in this meeting. Mr. Knight said that it was.
Mr. Young moved that Case No.017-98 be approved in conceptional massing, only, and that the applicant be requested to appear before the Architectural Subcommittee for further development of the details and return to the full Commission for final approval. It was seconded by Mr. McFarland.
After a short discussion, the motion was amended.
Mr. Young moved that Case No. 017-98 be approved in conceptional massing, only, and that the applicant be requested to appear before the Architectural Subcommittee for further development of the details including the following: 1) updated elevation drawings, preferably with the materials and details called out;
2) more information on the stucco application details and the color, normally the color is not reviewed unless it would be a permanent element; 3) a window section, window schedule, and more information about how those windows would be detailed; 4) a final determination on the front window configuration with the transoms; 5) details of the porches; 6) details of all materials, such as the roofing materials; 7) details of a wall section; and 8) details of the recessed bays. The project will return to the full Commission for final approval. The second still stood by Mr. McFarland. Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, and Ms. Miller, were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
NACP Conference in Denver from July 31 to August 2. 1998.
There was a short discussion regarding the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions conference. Ms. Blaes, Mr. Gordon, and Mr. Young were the Commission members selected to attend. The specifics of the conference will be reported back to the rest of the Commission members. Ms. Blaes urged the Staff to make a recommendation to the administration that the budget be expanded next year to allow more Commission members to attend the conference and build support networks for local preservation commissions for the preservation movement nationwide. The discussion continued.
Ms. Giraud said that she would also investigate the possibility of grant money being used to fund training programs for Commission members.
Traffic Calming in the Avenues area.
Ms. Giraud reminded the Commission members that a few months ago, Craig Timothy, from Salt Lake City's Department of Transportation, reported on traffic calming at a past Historic Landmark Commission meeting. She said that involving the Historic Landmark Commission was not met with much enthusiasm in the Transportation Division or the Avenues Community Council. Ms. Giraud said that a meeting was held with staff from the Transportation Division, and nothing could be found in the City ordinance that specifically addressed Historic Landmark Commission being required to review things in the public way.
Ms. Giraud said that she pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission had a tradition of working with public works in the Exchange Place Historic District, in Pioneer and Liberty Parks, and also on South Temple. She referred to the most recent reconstruction project for South Temple. Ms. Giraud indicated that in that project, there are many historic street features, including the sandstone sidewalks and the lattice pole lights which have to be considered. She said that there was an advisory committee assigned, which was comprised of Staff, public, and members of the Historic Landmark Commission. She said that many of these issues were discussed in that committee.
Ms. Giraud said that she made the suggestion that an advisory committee be formed for the traffic calming issues. She said that the first meeting will be August 19, 1998 and Ms. Giraud asked for any members who would be interested in attending the meeting and working with the Avenues Community Council. Ms. Jeppsen and Mr. Owen volunteered to serve on that advisory committee.
A discussion developed regarding some of the issues of traffic calming and street lighting in the Avenues area, as well as other similar matters which involves the Historic Landmark Commission.
Gateway Development Master Plan area.
Ms. Blaes said that on August 6, the City Council will have a briefing regarding the Gateway Development Master Plan, and on August 11th, the City Council will hold a public hearing. She pointed out that the Planning Staff had made recommendations to the Planning Commission, at its public hearing, to incorporate stronger language with regard to preservation for the development of the master plan. Ms. Blaes said that the Planning Commission chose not to adopt or even consider those recommendations from Staff.
Ms. Blaes said that she felt strongly about "preservation" being a part of the master plan. She said that the draft includes no language such as designation, creative incentives, or using traditional development patterns as a "spring board" for additional development in that area. Ms. Blaes stated that those recommendations were not unreasonable. She said they included such things as the consideration for national register designations for tax incentives for rehabilitation, and local designations to help control some of the development around the historic buildings in the Gateway area.
Ms. Blaes suggested that each member call his/her own representative to the City Council. She said she will provide each member with some organized information, such as the recommendations which were given to the Planning Commission. A discussion followed.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:15P.M.