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 Thomas Cerruti, Bruce Miya, Elizabeth Giraud, Lisa Miller, and Joel Paterson.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Maren Jeppsen, Sarah Miller, Bruce Miya, Heidi Swinton, and Dina Williams. Sandra Hatch, Rob McFarland, Lynn Morgan, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Lisa Miller, Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Chairperson, Wallace Cooper. Mr. Cooper announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He 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.
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
Ms. Williams moved to approve the minutes of the June 4, 1997 meeting. It was seconded by Mr. Cartwright. After a brief discussion, Ms. Williams withdrew the motion.
Ms. Williams moved to table the minutes of the June 4, 1997, meeting until the necessary corrections were made. It was seconded by Mr. Miya. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, Mr. Miya, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Hatch, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS CASES
Case No. 018-96, at 39 No. Q Street, by Art Brothers, represented by Alan Smith, requesting the Historic Landmark Commission make a determination as to whether or not the building at 39 No. Q Street is considered a "contributing structure" in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Lisa Miller presented the staff report by outlining the criteria the Commission must use to determine whether or not 39 Q Street would be considered a contributing structure, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She pointed out that the Staff only recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission make its- findings on each of the criteria for selection and determine the contributing or noncontributing status of this building. Photographs of the applicant's house and other World War II era houses were circulated.
Mr. Art Brothers, the applicant, as well as Mr. Alan Smith, attorney, and Ms. Paula Carl, architect, who were representing the applicant, were present. Mr. Smith stated that he had handed out, through the Chair Person, an engineer's evaluation of the property with regard to the condition of the foundation. Mr. Smith said that he planned to give his and the applicant's view of the language of the ordinance [Salt Lake City Code 21A.34.020, H Historic Preservation Overlay District], as it pertains to the home at 39 Q Street.
Mr. Smith reiterated that the decision that the Historic Landmark Commission was asked to render at this meeting was whether the home at 39 Q Street was to be considered contributory or noncontributory, as defined by the zoning ordinance, to the Avenues Historic District, and not whether or not the home should be demolished. He said that he believed that the people who drafted this ordinance thought there were properties in that district that were noncontributing because they put a definition to that effect and provided a separate procedure for Certificates of Appropriateness. Mr. Smith called it a "two-track system".
Mr. Smith presented a lengthy dissertation why, as he stated, " the burden of persuasion is on anyone who would have this [home] classified as a contributing structure." He gave the following five (5) reasons why he thought that statement was true:
1. When the property was surveyed in the late 1970's, it was designated as a noncontributing structure, which was acknowledged in the Staff report. The surveyors used the same, or similar, criteria to evaluate contributing and noncontributing structures as is used presently. The home was built in the early 1940's and in the late 1970's, when the survey was made, it was not 50 years old.
2. The house on Q Street has had no important historical trend or event associated with it.
3. If a home owner preferred to have a home classified as contributory, the benefits that flow from that status usually would be desired, such as grants, loans, or other available moneys which would impact historic preservation. He indicated that the applicant would like the Commission to render a decision to classifying his home as noncontributory.
4. If the Commission, as a whole, decides that the house on Q Street is contributory, the members will be putting many Staff and individuals through a time consuming procedure while going through the appeals process. Before that next step is taken, the Commission has to be firmly persuaded that it wants the Commission and the Staff to bear that extra burden.
5. The demolition issue was presented to the Avenues Community Council on two separate evenings and the members voted overwhelmingly to permit the demolition of the house at 39 Q Street. The members of the Community Council are the people who make up the community.
Mr. Smith stated that, as a lawyer, and if this hearing was a civil court proceeding, it would have been pointed out that no one had stepped forward, with facts, to make a presentation to "carry that burden of persuasion" He said that the Staff did not make a recommendation whether the building was considered contributory or not. He
continued by saying that since there had not been evidence presented or no advocacy, in behalf of a contributory status, "our side, in a sense, could rest” it was stated, by Mr. Smith, that he wanted to go through a step-by-step process of the ordinance. Mr. Smith gave the following discourse regarding sections of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District Ordinance (Salt Lake City Code 21A.34.020), a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting:
Section (A)(1) reads: "Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the City and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance." Mr. Smith claimed that he counted the number of times that the drafters of this ordinance used the word "significant", or a synonym of the word, such as, "notable", "important", "distinctive", or "exceptional", which was nine (9) times. He said, " that was striking to them." Mr. Smith stated, " not just any tract home or any cottage is going to be contributory. It has to be significant in some sense; notable in some sense; distinctive by comparison in some sense and exceptional.
Section (A)(2) reads: "Encourage new development, redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in historic districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks." Mr. Smith said that it was not enough that the Q Street property was in an historic district, the Commission had to decide whether this parcel was contributing. He added that the property was not significant.
Mr. Smith referred to Section (8)(2) which reads: "Contributing Structure. A contributing structure is a structure or site within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District that meets the criteria outlined in Subsection (C)(2) of this section and is of moderate importance to the city, state, region, or nation because it imparts artistic, historic, or cultural values. A contributing structure has its major character-defining features intact, and although minor alterations may have occurred, they are generally reversible. Historic materials may have been covered, but evidence indicates they are intact." He said that there would have to be a "direct link" between the Q Street property and the significant contribution to broad patterns of history.
Subsection (C)(2) was mentioned by Mr. Smith, which reads: "Criteria for Selection of an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or Landmark Site. The Historic Landmark Commission shall evaluate each parcel of property within a proposed H Historic Preservation Overlay District or the parcel of property associated with a landmark site. Individual parcels within a proposed district, the district as a whole, and landmark sites shall be evaluated according to the following: (a) Significance in local, regional, states or national history, architecture, engineering or culture, associated with at least one of the following: (i) Events that have made significant contribution to the broad patterns of history, or nation." Mr. Smith said, "I don't see anywhere that an event has been identified and connected with this property, let alone a significant event " He also said, referring to World War II, " that strikes me as not an event, but more of an era or a decade." "We are not told that a Veteran bought this house, that someone that was in the war trades moved up into this place. There are no facts that suggest an event, that has significance, is directly linked to this home, so it is our position that [criteria] isn't met, " Mr. Smith stated.
Mr. Smith said that the same would be true of Subsection (ii), which reads: "Lives of persons significant in the history of the city, region, state of Utah, or nation." Mr. Smith noted that no reason had been given why the people who built this home were, "significant or special, or historic in character."
Mr. Smith referred to Subsection (iii), which reads, "The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman." Mr. Smith said that there had not been a notable architect identified. He also said that there had been a period identified, but asked the question whether or not the period was distinctive. Mr. Smith recounted the statements in the Staff report where the house was labeled as minimal traditional and/or Cape Cod. Mr. Smith stated that the house was not distinctive because the Staff could not identify the type house it was. He referred to the house as a "metamorphosis".
Mr. Smith discussed Subsection (iv), which reads: "Information in the understanding of the prehistory or history of Salt Lake City." He said that there had been few facts identified about this house. He reported that he believed the house was built as a tract house because it was sold the next year. He reiterated that it was changed into a duplex in 1950. Mr. Smith stated, "With so little to say about the property, it doesn't seem notable, within the meaning of the ordinance. And that is another reason why we don't think it’s important."
Mr. Smith explained, as he referred to other sections of the ordinance, that the house had not maintained its physical integrity because it had been changed from a single family house to a duplex; the house had no significance, as was discussed earlier in the meeting; the house has some major problems such as cracks in the foundation and water damage, as was noted in the engineer's report; and the age of the site was in reference to what. He asked, "When did the clock start ticking?" He said that the house was not 50 years old when the original survey was written. He suggested that the 50-year-period should have begun in 1950, when the house was reconfigured into a duplex; therefore it would not, currently, meet the 50-year old criteria.
Mr. Smith summarized his thoughts by reminding the Commission members that they had to implement several policies that were not consistent within the ordinance. He then stated that the Commission's "mission" was to read and apply the ordinance. Mr. Smith reflected on several thoughts he had mentioned earlier in this meeting. He expressed his preference for the Commission to consider the house at 39 Q Street as a noncontributory structure so it could be demolished and build something "nice in its place."
As there were no questions, concerns, and comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
There was some discussion regarding making a motion immediately, then guiding the discussion to the wording of the motion. Some members did not support that suggestion. Ms. Williams said that a motion could not be formulated until the Commission had determined if it agreed with the Staffs findings of fact, as the Staff report contained no findings of fact, a discussion needed to take place prior to making a motion. Ms. Deal said that although she, originally, had made that suggestion, she agreed with Ms. Williams that the feelings of the members needed to be known as to which direction the Commission should take.
Mr. Cooper continued to encourage the Commission to make a motion, as to whether the structure at 39 Q Street was considered contributory or noncontributory, followed by a discussion, which would be noted in the minutes. Ms. Williams said that she thought that concept was like "putting the cart before the horse" and was not appropriate without the proper findings of fact.
Ms. Deal stated that she wanted to address the comments made by the applicant's representative and to express her own opinions about the ordinance and issues surrounding this property. She said that the Commission could argue style but that it was just a word that described something in the vocabulary. Ms. Deal said that to each individual, style expressed a set of architectural features which could mean something different to each person. She said that this discussion, as to whether or not this house was considered contributory, was about the fabric of the historic district and about a language of history. Ms. Deal indicated that historic districts were not just being preserved for today's convenient living, they were being preserved so the trends in history could be studied in the future. She said that the historic fabric of a neighborhood was being ripped apart when old buildings were removed.
Ms. Deal said that the building located at 39 Q. Street, makes a statement about what was happening in 1940's and what the neighborhoods were made of. She said that she believed that it is a contributing part of the history of the Avenues. Ms. Deal said the fact that it was called a "tract' home was what made it significant to the neighborhood. She pointed out that for a building to have significance in a neighborhood, it does not have to have high-style architecture like the Governor's Mansion on South Temple. Ms. Deal continued by saying that if houses, such as the one being discussed, are not preserved, then a part of history will be lost forever.
Ms. Sarah Miller stated that she also believed that the subject house was contributing and believed it met the criteria listed in the ordinance under Subsection (C)(2)(a)(iii), which reads, "The distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman." She said that she thought that the property met those distinctive characteristics of the type period and the method of construction. Ms. Sarah Miller said that she also thought the property met the criteria listed in Subsections (C)(2)(b) and (c). She said that the house had retained its major elements and had physical integrity, and it was at least 50 years old.
A lengthy discussion took place that focused on the contributory status of the subject property and the broad interpretations of the ordinance. "Significant" was a key word during the conversation. Mr. Cooper referred to several apartment buildings in the Avenues, which were built in the 1950's or 1960's that had integrity, but were not, what he considered, significant.
Ms. Swinton pointed out that one of the things the Commission was "wrestling" with was the definition of integrity, and if the mere existence of a structure, gave it integrity. She questioned that age was the measure of integrity. Ms. Swinton said that she believed there would be many people coming before this Commission who would present the same kind of issues that were being heard at this meeting. She said that she thought the Commission should strike a balance and "give it some sense of definition". Ms. Swinton addressed the concerns she had that the public would be discouraged as the Commission would be perceived as a dictatorial body. She thought that the Commission should allow fluidity within the environment which the Commission has the responsibility to oversee. Mr. Cerruti pointed out that, although those comments were interesting, the Commission still had to follow the law.
Mr. Cooper said that the Commission had a mandate, not only to abate the destruction of historic structures, but also to encourage new development and redevelopment. The discussion continued.
Ms. Deal moved that the Historic Landmark Commission found that the building located at 39 "Q" Street for Case No. 018-96 was contributory by the following definition: It has its major character-defining features intact; it still retains its physical integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association; and its at least 50 years old. It was seconded by Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Miya voted "Aye". Mr. Damery and Ms. Swinton were opposed. Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Hatch, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Cooper explained to the applicant that the appeals process was noted on the back of the agenda.
Case No. 007-97. at 439 No. Main Street. by Todd Holloway of DT Partnership, requesting approval of the design for a new duplex.
This case was postponed.
NEW CASE
Case No. 007-97. at 279 South 300 West (Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church). represented by Jeff Davis of Gulp Construction. requesting permission to use glass ·fiber reinforced concrete as a replacement material for wood ornamentation.
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 stated that the applicant was only replacing the cornice on the building. Ms. Giraud said that since the glass fiber reinforced concrete (G.F.R.C.) product is created from a mold, it can be duplicated so she said that she felt that this product had a greater potential for good replication. Ms. Giraud read a portion of the Preservation Brief No. 16, which was included with the Staff report, as follows: "the fact is that substitute materials are being used more frequently than ever on preservation projects and in many cases with positive results". She further said that requests, such of this, needed to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Jeff Davis of Gulp Construction, representing the applicant, was present. He circulated photographs of the damaged wood on the structure. He had samples of the product that he displayed. Mr. Davis said that he strongly encouraged the Church to stay with fabrics which would not take away from the historical significance of the building. He said that his company did a lot of restoration work and he always tried to move the owners in that direction. He said that he supported the preservation effort of the Commission and the Staff.
Mr. Davis continued by saying, as he pointed to the photographs of the building, that all the stone-looking original facades and columns were precast concrete and what he was proposing was a precast concrete product He said that the G.F.R.C. product had fiberglass in it which allowed a thinner, stronger, and lighter weight material than the original elements.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Cerruti led the discussion by asking about the colors of the proposed product which would be used on the building. Mr. Davis said that he was trying to determine what the original color was and duplicate it. Mr. Cerruti was concerned that since the color had not been determined, that a bright red or some other like color would not be used. Mr. Davis said that the Church's building committee wants to go with the original color, but if that could not be determine, a gray concrete color, which would match the rest of the building, would be used.
• Mr. Miya asked if the color of the G.F.R.C. product that would be used for replacement, was integral or applied. Mr. Davis said that it would be an integral color.
• Ms. Deal inquired further about the duplicated precast elements. Mr. Davis said that the concrete elements on the building would not be replaced with the G.F.R.C. product because the concrete was intact and not significantly deteriorated. He said that Churches often have limited budgets, with regard to upkeep on a building, so only the significantly deteriorated wood would be replaced. Mr. Davis stated that the deteriorated areas were not easily accessed, as they were 35 feet off the ground, so the Church had not been able to keep the wood trim well-painted. Ms. Deal said that she was concerned and thought there should be a sample of the details or a "mock up" of the work that the Staff could look at for final approval. Mr. Davis said that the details could be reproduced exactly and that was his intention. He said that throughout the country, this product was being used on historical buildings. Mr. Davis spoke of restoration conferences, that he had attended, where this product was discussed. He said that the interior dome of the Governor's Mansion, which was primarily wood, a product very similar to what was being proposed, was used.
Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon receiving no requests, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A discussion took place regarding the issues surrounding this case. Ms. Deal said that she had less of a problem with this case because of the existence of the exact same precast detail on the rest of the building. She said that precast concrete already existed on this building, and that she believed that the detailing was intended to be precast, originally.
Mr. Cooper stated that there was nothing like the use of original materials and cautioned the Commission that if an approval was rendered on this case, that the Commission would not be "opening the door" to the replacement of any cornice or architectural details with the G.F.R.C. product. Mr. Cooper referred to Chapter 21A.34.020(G)(6) and read the following part: "Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible." Mr. Cooper further expressed his concerns about using this product and read a portion of the Staffs discussion from the Staff Report, which referred to the design guidelines, adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission in January of 1997, "Where replacement is required, one should remove only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. "He said that he did not believe that major portions of that architectural detail on the building were beyond repair. He said that those parts should be repaired. Mr. Cooper continued to read the same paragraph, "Substitute materials may be considered when the original is not easily available, "He said that wood was available and with the improved technology, a decent paint job would last 15 to 20 years and would be much less expensive than the G.F.R.C. product. Mr. Cooper continued to refer to sections of the Staff report.
Mr. Cooper indicated that the real issues were the removal of historic fabric, which was totally contrary to the Commission's standards. He again cautioned the Commission, if it finds itself supportive to this proposal, that the reasons needed to be specifically stated in the motion.
Ms. Swinton said that the G.F.R.C. product probably was a better idea by today's standards but also expressed her concerns that if the Commission "opened the door" to allow the replacement of historic material, the door would be difficult to close. She discussed the possibility of an applicant requesting to replace the wood on the front porch of a home in a historic district with G.F.R.C. She inquired if the Commission would allow that.
Mr. Damery remarked that if the Commission would be sympathetic to allow the wood trim to be replaced with the proposed product, that concrete architectural elements already existed on the building and that would be the distinction with this proposal. Some other members agreed.
A discussion followed regarding the replacement of architectural details on the building and concerns were expressed by the members about the issues of compromising the integrity of what was original to the building. The discussion also included comments that the Commission had previously allowed artificial materials such as fiberglass columns on front porches and vinyl windows on building.
• Ms. Deal moved to approve the use of the glass fiber reinforced concrete product, referred to as G.F.R.C., for Case No. 007-97 for the blind arcade treatment because of the following: 1) Precast concrete is a major material already used on this building; 2) that the new material would match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture, and other visual qualities, as included in Standard (G)(6) for the Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure found in the ordinance; 3) that the replacement would be based on accurate duplication of features; and 4) that G.F.R.C. was not a specifically prohibited by the ordinance. It was seconded by Mr. Cartwright.
Mr. Miya suggested amending the motion by adding that the other precast items on the building were similar in architectural detail.
The motion was amended.
Ms. Deal moved to approve the use of the glass fiber reinforced concrete product, referred to as G.F.R.C., for Case No. 007-97 for the blind arcade treatment because of the following: 1) Precast concrete is a major material already used on this building; 2) that the new material would match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture, and other visual qualities, as included in Standard (G)(6) for the Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure found in the ordinance; 3) that the replacement would be based on accurate duplication of features; 4) that G.F.R.C. was not a specifically prohibited by the ordinance; and 5) that this detail already exists, in a precast form, on this building. Mr. Cartwright's second still stood.
Mr. Cooper asked that the following be reflected in the minutes: "I have the same concern that I expressed earlier, that this motion does not substantially comply with the ordinance. As I read the Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure, I read paragraphs in that section that concern me."
Ms. Deal said that the words "feasible" and "necessary" in Section 21A.34.020(G)(6) gave the Commission the latitude within the ordinance and wanted the minutes to reflect that this decision would not be a blanket approval for any kind of restoration project and that each request would be reviewed by this Commission on a case-by case basis.
Mr. Cooper said that he was very concerned about the consistency of this Commission. He pointed out that at a previous meeting, the Commission went through Standards 1 through 12 for the Certificate of Appropriateness, and in that particular case, considered if the proposal substantially complied with each standard. Mr. Cooper said that the Commission ruled that it did not comply to each standard for the Certificate of Appropriateness so approval was not granted. He said that the Commission was about to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness without reviewing each of those twelve standards. Mr. Cooper read a portion of (G), " project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application" He said that he would not ask the Commission to verbally go through each standard but for each member to consider them before a decision was rendered. Ms. Deal said that she had done that and only found two that applied to this case, which were Nos. 6 and 9. Mr. Cooper called for the vote.
Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Mr. Miya, and Ms. Swinton
voted "Aye". Ms. Jeppsen was opposed. Mr. Cooper, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Hatch, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Cooper discussed an Historic Landmark Commission Workshop on Thursday, June
26, 1997 from 12:00 Noon to 3:00P.M. in Room 126 in the City and County Building. He urged all the members to carefully read the ordinance and to attend this workshop. Mr. Pratt Cassity, who is the Director of the Office of Preservation Services in the School of Environmental Design at the University of Georgia, and also serves as the Executive Director of the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, had offered his assistance to be the moderator at this workshop.
Also, Ms. Lisa Miller reminded the Commission that the election of officers would take place at the July 2nd Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:40 P.M.