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 Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon, Robert Payne, and Amy Rowland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Elizabeth Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Mitchell asked members of the audience to turn 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
The approval of the minutes of the June 7, 2000 meeting was postponed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 017-00, at 849 So. Park Street, by Katrina Vaenuku, requesting to legalize a chain link fence in the Central City Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the applicant was requesting legalization of a chain link and cinder-block fence that was installed in the front yard at her home. Ms. Giraud said that according to the historic site survey undertaken in 1994, the house was built in 1903 and is considered "non-contributing" because of the numerous alterations to the building.
Ms. Giraud stated that the installation of the fence was brought to the staff’s attention and a zoning enforcements officer stopped the action. She pointed out that the applicant would like to keep the fence because she baby sits her fourteen grandchildren at her home and is concerned about their safety and wanted to pursue legalizing the fence.
Ms. Giraud indicated that Section 21A.34.020 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance does not specifically address fencing materials. However, she pointed out that the zoning ordinance has general rules for fencing; the most pertinent in this case is Section 21A.40.120 that establishes the allowed height in the front yard of 48 inches. Ms. Giraud said that the applicant's fence is 57 inches high.
Ms. Giraud said that after a staff survey of fencing materials, the staff proposed that the Historic Landmark Commission adopt a policy prohibiting chain link fencing in all historic districts, except for the following conditions: 1) the topography of the lot is such that chain link fencing would be more appropriate than other types of fencing; 2) the fencing is not visible for the public right-of-way; or 3) if the fencing is visible from the public right-of-way, it must be screened by wood slats or mature shrubbery which will hide the chain link. Vines are not an appropriate screening device because they lose their foliage in the winter months and the chain link would be visible during this time. She added that the Historic Landmark Commission adopted this policy on February 3, 1993.
Ms. Giraud reported that the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City also addresses the issue of fencing materials in "Standards for Site Features." She said that the standards address the preservation of original fences, as well as replacement fences. Ms. Giraud noted that Standard 1.4 states: "A replacement fence should have a 'transparent' quality, allowing views into the yard from the street." She stated that using a solid fence, with no spacing between the boards, is inappropriate in a front yard and chain link is not allowed as a fence material where it would be visible
from the street.
Ms. Giraud talked about the goals for the Central City Historic District, such as many on Central City's yards are bounded by fences. She said that, historically, materials were wood and metal and the use of wood, iron, and wire fences were preferred, as they are more in character with the neighborhood.
Ms. Giraud talked about other chain link fence cases that had been reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Ms. Giraud offered the staffs findings of fact and staff’s recommendation, as follows: "The chain link and cinder block fence clearly does not meet the provisions of the policy adopted in 1993 because the fence is visible from the street, there is no topographic hardship, and the fence is on the property line so it would be difficult to screen with vegetation. The use of the blocks makes the fence even more visible. The applicant made the argument to staff that there are many chain link fences in her neighborhood, which is true. The text from the guidelines is intended to provide flexibility for Central City residents because of the disparity of land uses and income levels. Nonetheless, staff found that the applicant did not meet the provisions of the 1993 policy. Therefore, staff recommends that the application for legalization be denied, and that the applicant meet with the Architectural Subcommittee to find a solution for a front-yard fence."
Ms. Giraud said the applicant's recourse would be to apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance if she wanted to have a fence higher than 48 inches in the front yard.
When asked about the grade difference between two properties, Mr. Paterson said that the grade difference would be taken into consideration, and the measurement would be considered from the midway point of the differences between the two properties.
There was some discussion regarding the height of the fence and how it was measured, the height of the cinder-block portion of the wall, the 48-inch height maximum applied to any part of the fence, and the possibility of minimizing the impact of the chain link by putting wood slats in the fencing material.
The applicant, Ms. Katrina Vaenuku, was present. She talked about her desire to have the fence because she tended her grandchildren and was concerned about their safety. She stated that she could not afford a more expensive fence for her property. Ms. Vaenuku said that she had no idea that this type of fence was not allowed because there were other chain link fences on the street. She said that her family has made contributions to help her pay for the fence.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Wilson led the discussion by inquiring if the applicant had planned to put a gate across the driveway. Ms. Vaenuku said that the work was stopped before the gate was installed across the driveway, as well as the front sidewalk access.
• • Mr. Littig asked if the applicant knew if there was rebar inside the cinder-blocks. He said he wondered how hard it would be to remove cinder-blocks to reduce the height. Ms. Vaenuku said that there was no rebar inside the cinderblocks. There was some further discussion regarding this issue. Mr. Littig inquired if the applicant had already purchased the gates. The applicant said that she had not.
• Mr. Christensen asked if the applicant was planning to paint the cinder-block or apply a plaster finish. The applicant said that she had not made plans for that yet; she wanted to find out what the Commission suggested.
In conclusion, Ms. Vaenuku again discussed the necessity of having the fence for her grandchildren's safety. Ms. Mitchell reiterated Ms. Vaenuku's position by saying that she was taking care of the grandchildren and she needs a fenced yard to keep them inside the fence and safe. Ms. Mitchell assured Ms. Vaenuku that the Commission understood her need for the fence as a safety factor, but emphasized that it was a matter of how that would be accomplished.
Ms. Mitchell opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Vickie Colton, who resides at 852 South Park Street, stated that she had empathy for Ms. Vaenuku's need to protect the children. She said that she called staff to protest the chain link fence. Ms. Colton said that he had been working really hard on her home and was successful in eradicating the chain link fence between her and the neighbor's adjoining property, as well as other chain link fences. Ms. Colton said that the neighbors have been working to improve the look of the neighborhood and because the subject fence is so visible, it detracts from the character of the street. She said that she would like to help Ms. Vaenuku find a more appropriate treatment for the fence and try to help find some available funding for her. Ms. Colton said that she had talked to several neighbors. She submitted a petition with 25 signatures, which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
• Mr. Bruce Whitaker, who resides at 828 South Park Street, stated that he said that "he did not think the fence looked that bad", but he said that he understood the height issue. He gave several suggestions of what the applicant could do to legalize the fence. He said that he hopes there could be some mitigation regarding the fence issue. A short discussion took place regarding suggestions recommendations for the applicant.
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Mitchell closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Simonsen said that there were several examples of chain link in the neighborhood and he could see why the owner thought that it would be all right to erect the chain link fence. He said that he believed a solution could be found.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved to deny the legalization request for Case No. 017-00, based on staff's recommendation and that the applicant is to meet with the Architectural Subcommittee to find a solution for appropriate changes to the fence so that a front-yard fence could be approved. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
Ms. Mitchell asked for clarification of the motion. She asked if Mr. Simonsen required the chain link to be removed and what changes would have to be made. Mr. Simonsen said that the chain link would have to be removed. Because the motion did not specify that the application needed to return to the full Commission for approval, Ms. Mitchell suggested polling the Commission members to find out if the applicant needed to return to the full Commission or if the approval could be handled administratively. The majority of the members agreed that the approval could be made by staff. Mr. Simonsen amended the motion.
Amended motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved to deny the legalization request for Case No. 017-00, based on the staff's recommendation. Further, that the chain link is to be removed and the applicant is to meet with the Architectural Subcommittee for the appropriate changes to the fence, such as the height, screening materials, treatment for the concrete block, and finding a solution for a front-yard fence that might be administratively approved. The second still stood by Mr. Young. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Ms. Mitchell, as Acting Chairperson did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Adoption of new policies regarding administrative approvals.
Ms. Giraud gave a brief history of the issues that have augmented since staff was given more authority to issue Certificates of Appropriateness for applicants. She presented the staff memorandum by outlining the findings of the Administrative Approval Committee that met between March 15 and April17, 2000. She said that based on recommendations of that committee, staff prepared draft language for two new policies regarding administration approvals, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Giraud said that the role of the Commission was to either adopt or not adopt the proposed policies that would be included in the Historic Landmark Commission's Policies and Procedures.
Ms. Giraud referenced the following new draft policy changes regarding administrative approvals:
15.0 Additions -Additions on historic residential structures are sometimes a necessary part of maintaining the viability of historic properties and districts. However, new additions should be designed in such a manner that they preserve the historic character of the primary structure. In general, large additions and those which affect the primary elevation of the residence have a greater potential to adversely affect the historic integrity of a historic house. Furthermore, because the roofline of a historic home is a character-defining feature, additions that require the alteration of the roofline of the original, early, or historic portion of the house should be avoided. Thus, in the following instances, the full Historic Landmark Commission should review proposals for additions that involve the following actions: 1) if an addition is substantially visible from the street; 2) if the footprint of the addition equals is 50 percent or larger of the existing footprint of the house; or 3) if the addition requires a change in roofline (excluding dormers) of the primary structure.
16.0 Garages- The Historic Landmark Commission recognizes that garages are a necessary part of maintaining the viability of historic properties and districts, and accessory structures have always been features in the historic landscape of Salt Lake City. However, garages, when not designed to be compatible with the primary structure or when not visually subordinate to the primary structure, can have an adverse effect on the historic character of a district. For this reason, the Historic Landmark Commission should review garages with the following characteristics: 1) the garage is larger than 600 square feet; 2) the garage creates a substantial presence on the streetscape because it would be located on a corner lot or visible from a public way; 3) it is more than one-story in height; or 4) it will be used for an auxiliary use that could lead to disruptive activity in a neighborhood.
17.0 Carports- Carports are generally not allowed on contributing structures in an historic district or on a landmark site, or when visible from the street or public right-of-way on a non-contributing structure in an historic district. Carports are allowed when staff determines that they will not have an adverse effect on the streetscape within an historic district and are associated with a non-contributing structure. In the event that the staff determines that approving a carport would have an adverse effect on a property, streetscape or environment within an historic district, the property owner can appeal the staff's decision to the full Historic Landmark Commission.
The above corrections were made to the draft language.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if carports were defined in the ordinance. Ms. Giraud said that she was not certain how they were defined in the ordinance but would find out.
Ms. Mitchell inquired what members of the Commission served on this committee. Ms. Giraud said that Willy Littig and Wayne Gordon volunteered to serve on the committee. She said that she would be interested in the thinking behind the draft policy language.
Ms. Giraud said that the committee investigated all the administrative approvals made since the zoning ordinance was rewritten in 1995. The approvals were broken down into categories such as windows, roofs, handrails, porches, and so forth. She said that the biggest issue was the public notification of the project. Ms. Giraud said that the committee believed that too much was getting approved at the staff level or the subcommittee level without the neighbors being notified. Ms. Giraud spoke of several sample applications where the project was large and/or visible from the street. She pointed out that there were not enough staff members to write staff reports for every addition, garage, or other smaller projects to have every one of those projects be reviewed at an Historic Landmark Commission meeting. She said that the applications have to be accompanied with photographs, drawings, and/or site visits. However, she said that the administrative approval process had made it possible for "people to grow with their houses" in a shorter period of time. Ms. Giraud said that her feeling was that the change had been, "for the most part, very good". She stated that staff approved on the average of 300 administrative approvals each year. She added that "there also have been some very big projects that we have regretted approving, which was an error in judgment or that the project was out of control".
Ms. Giraud said that committee looked at several options and decided on changing the Historic Landmark Commission Policies and Procedures, rather than going through the lengthy process of an ordinance change.
Ms. Mitchell asked if "character" was a deciding factor in an approval of a project. Ms. Giraud said that if a project was not in "character" with the neighborhood, staff would try to point that out to the applicant. However, applicants were still bound by the ordinance.
Mr. Littig said that staff acquired a comprehensive list of standards from another city, which left little flexibility for the applicant. He added that the committee compromised and came up with the proposed changes in the policy. The discussion continued regarding issues relating to this matter.
Ms. Giraud stated that staff tried to avoid an application being reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission because of the $200.00 filing charge. She added that the fee for most projects had been reduced to $25.00 so the cost was no longer a factor.
Mr. Christensen inquired if something about materials should be in included in the policies. Ms. Giraud said that materials were covered by the standards in the ordinance.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved that the proposed policy changes regarding administrative approvals be adopted and included in the Historic Landmark Commission's Policies of Procedure with the following corrections that were discussed during the meeting:
1. 15.0 (Additions), No. 2, "If the footprint of the addition equals 50 percent or larger of the existing footprint of the house"; and
2. 16.0 (Garages) No.2, "The garage creates a substantial presence on the streetscape because it would be located on a corner lot or visible from a public way."
It was seconded by Mr. Simonsen. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Ms. Mitchell, as Acting Chairperson did not vote. The motion passed.
Discussion of the upcoming conference sponsored by the National Alliance for Preservation Commissions in Pittsburg, PA, on August 4 through 6, 2000.
Ms. Giraud said that the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) is sponsoring its second biennial forum for commissioners and staff from across the country. The objectives of the conference is 1) to provide an interactive training program in which commissioners receive the benefit of experiences from across the country, while sharing their accomplishments; 2) to establish a forum for the exchange of ideas and techniques that are emerging in local preservation work; and 3) to establish a peer support network for communities of varying levels of population, socio-economic profiles, and planning emphases.
Ms. Giraud said that there was $4,000 of CLG (Certified Local Government) funds available for the members of the Commission to attend the conference. Mr. Littig, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, and Mr. Simonsen all expressed a desire to go. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Gordon attended last year but also expressed a desire to attend again this year. There was some further discussion regarding the availability of funds. Ms. Giraud said that it would be finalized and she would contact the members who were interesting in attending.
An expression of appreciation to members of the Historic Landmark Commission whose terms were expiring.
Ms. Giraud reported that she received notification from the mayor's office that several members of the Commission, whose terms would expire in July, will be extended. She added that the extensions would not be approved by the City Council before their expiration dates, due to the heavy scheduling of the council meetings.
Ms. Giraud noted that Ms. Mitchell chose not to request an extension due to her increased work schedule. The members expressed their appreciation to her.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved to thank Ms. Mitchell for her service to the public as a member of the Historic Landmark Commission and in her capacity of vice chairperson. It was seconded by Mr. Simonsen. Mr. Christensen, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland were not present. Ms. Mitchell, as
Acting Chairperson did not vote. The motion passed.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Mitchell 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.