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 Dina Blaes, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Joel Paterson.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, William Damery, Susan Deal, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Lynn Morgan, Orlan Owen, and Robert Young. Billie Ann Devine was 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 Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each case 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 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
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the May 20, 1998 meeting. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Devine was not present. The motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Case No. 014-98. at 400 South and 700 East. on Block 39. Plat B. by Thomas Williamsen, represented by Russ Naylor. Architect. requesting approval to construct five new structures and re-use an existing structure.
The case was postponed at the discretion of the applicant.
Ms. Blaes announced that the agenda would not be followed for the remainder of the meeting. She said that the "Other Business" portion of the meeting would supersede the "New Business" portion.
• OTHER BUSINESS
Odd Fellows Building.
Ms. Blaes said that she was aware that the Commission received a briefing from Mr. Bill Wright, the Planning Director, during the last Commission meeting regarding the Odd Fellows Building. She said that she would like the Commission members to receive a copy of the letter from Mayor Corradini to the second in command at the Government Services Agency (GSA). She stated that the members should be aware of that letter because the Mayor sent a very strong message about supporting the efforts to retain Odd Fellows Building as part of the ten and thirty-year-plan for the expansion of the Frank E. Moss Court House Building. Ms. Blaes said that she appreciated the fact that the Mayor was willing to give support on the ongoing negotiations on that building.
Ms. Blaes said that the initial public meeting was held jointly with the Planning Commission on January 22, 1998, where. GSA presented three alternative schemes for the court house expansion. She indicated that GSA also proposed a series of public meetings and workshops. Ms. Blaes requested that Staff draft a letter to GSA, to encourage them to "get back on track for those public meetings". She said that she had spoken with Mr. Max Smith, Chair of the Planning Commission, and he offered his support of the draft letter. Ms. Blaes recommended that the letter be signed by both her and Mr. Smith.
Ms. Giraud said that she understood where Ms. Blaes was coming from on, but her concern was that GSA was on the Section 106 "track" at this time and did not want to do anything to distract GSA or give GSA any reason to distract us. Ms. Blaes said that the letter could be stated in a way that it was being written in conjunction with the Section 106 process. She said that she would appreciate Staff following through with this request.
Renovations to house at 603 East Sixth Avenue.
Ms. Blaes referred to the memo regarding the renovations to the house at 603 East Sixth Avenue, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She asked staff to give the members an update on the renovation project.
Ms. Giraud said that Staff checked the plans on that renovation and compared them to the work that was taking place on the site, and found many discrepancies. Staff gave a letter to the City's Building Inspector, Joe Schmidtke, who would be issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy to the owners and alerted them of the discrepancies. Mr. Schmidtke did not order the job to be shut down, at this time.
Ms. Blaes said are the work was far enough along that it would be difficult to go back and follow the approved plans. Ms. Giraud said that some issues could easily be rectified, but the larger issue of the roof on the west addition would be more difficult.
The Historic Landmark Commission's nominees for the awards.
Ms. Giraud presented a brief review of the awards and the nominees which had been selected. She asked that the Commission members vote on the nominees to narrow the selection. She announced that she had received selections from the Commission members who were not present. Ms. Giraud said that this would be further discussed at the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting.
NEW 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.
Ms. 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 of this meeting. She stated that she had not asked the architect to provide final drawings on the intended plans for this meeting. She also said that the porch issue was not part of this application. Ms. Giraud said that the house on Ely Street was very visible by anyone parking in the back-parking lot at Trolley Square.
Ms. Mitchell said that Ms. Giraud mentioned in the staff report that the revised plans for the addition would not be out of keeping in terms of height with the surrounding structures. She wanted to know if the roof height would be staying the same. Ms. Giraud suggested that the architect would address that issue. She said that the houses on the street vary from one and a half to two stories.
Mr. Littig inquired about the oriel window on the east side, and asked about the setback. Mr. Paterson said that windows were allowed to be two feet in the setback. Ms. Giraud said that she would have to check what the requirements were with zoning.
The applicant, Mr. Shawn Lockwood, was present, as well as his architect, Ms. Pam Wells. Ms. Wells said that she believed that the windows would cantilever about eighteen inches from the plane of the building to the windows, and believed that would not be a problem. The discussion regarding the windows was continued.
Mr. Lockwood was concerned because he said that it would be very difficult for him to change what had already been built. He further said that he would like to keep the oriel windows, if possible. Mr. Lockwood said that he should not have done what he did and expressed his desire to cooperate with the Commission.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Ms. Deal said that the applicant had eight stop work orders that he apparently ignored and the construction continued without a permit. She said that the fact that the applicant had already started construction had no bearing on this Commission, whatsoever. Ms. Deal said, "That is your problem and not a problem for the Historic Landmark Commission." She inquired about the height of the proposed addition. Ms. Wells said that it was 26 feet on the east elevation. The height issue continued to be discussed.
• Mr. Morgan clarified that the applicant had put more of the addition towards the front of the existing building. Ms. Wells confirmed that, but she said that Mr. Lockwood's intent, was to put the two-story addition in the back. She indicated that the excavation for the footings for the rear addition had already taken place. There was further discussion regarding how far the addition would pop out. Mr. Morgan asked for more explanation on the plans for the second floor dormer. Ms. Wells said that the dormer would have awning windows and closets. Mr. Morgan asked about the proposed stucco. Ms. Wells said that it would be Portland cement and not a synthetic stucco system.
• Mr. Littig asked about the proposed exterior material on the second floor. Ms. Wells said that it would be the same color of stucco and the eaves would be shingled. Mr. Littig said that he liked the change of material and thought that would be a nice surface change. Mr. Littig inquired if the applicant had considered putting more windows on the flat walls on the upper story on the north (front) elevation. Ms. Wells said that she had made that consideration but thought it would create more problems because windows would have to be 32 inches from the comer of the building. She was that she was open to suggestions. Mr. Littig said that the rear elevation showed two windows on the upper story on the plans and believed that same thing could be done on the front elevation. Mr. Littig expressed his concerns that much of the detailing had been lost and would like to see more detailing on the big exterior surfaces. Ms. Wells said that the sills would be rebuilt out with wood, which would be repeated in the addition. Mr. Lockwood mentioned that foam pop outs were not appropriate, as was discussed in the Subcommittee meeting. He said that he preferred to use wood for the window sills.
• Ms. Mitchell pointed out that the roof line on the south elevation appeared to be squared off and asked if there was any consideration to soften that appearance. Ms. Wells said she agreed that it was abrupt. Ms. Wells said that she had considered making a change but did not want to increase the mass of the building. There were some suggestions given, such as adding a partial hip roof, that might help alleviate that "squared off' look. A short discussion took place and Ms. Wells again said that she was open to suggestions.
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
Ms. Blaes asked the members to look at the findings of fact and determine if the Commission could make a decision. She said that the Commission needed to make it clear that the drawings were not at the level of detailing that the Commission required before making a final decision. Ms. Blaes suggested that the Commission address the Staff's findings.
Ms. Deal said that she had a problem with the portion of the staff report under scale and form. She suggested the members of the Commission look at the elevation drawings as she read, from the staff report, Section 8.11 of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City: "When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to the scale of the historic building. An addition shall not overhang the lower floors of the historic building in the front or on the sides." Ms. Deal said that the scale and details of the proposed addition could not be worked out in Subcommittee. She said that the addition would overwhelm and obliterate the original house. She said that she did not believe that the staff report addressed that issue, except to compare the size with the other houses on the street. Ms. Deal said that the addition would not be subordinate to the original house.
Ms. Blaes said that the house was listed as a non-contributing structure and the Design Guidelines did not address non-contributing structures. She talked more about how the ordinance made reference to the scale and form and the compatibility with surrounding structures and streetscape. Ms. Blaes said that she believed that the Design Guidelines should not be considered when dealing with a non-contributing structure.
Ms. Giraud said that the subject building was an historic structure like many others built in the Central City Historic District. Ms. Giraud said that the structure was determined to be non-contributing because of the application of stone to the front facade, which made it lose some of its original integrity. She further said that the Design Guidelines were meant as a guide in making decisions.
Mr. Morgan stated that the building was in the district and the mass and scale would impact the quality of the district and the houses on either side. He spoke of the proposed spring wall which was eight feet above the second floor on the upper addition. He explained that was one of the reasons why the applicant would be ending up with a 30-foot high ridge line. Mr. Morgan believed that bringing the addition more to the front helped that massing to some extent. Ms. Deal said that the addition could be made much smaller and still be quite functional.
Ms. Blaes read the Staffs finding: "The proposed alteration is visually compatible with the surrounding structures in scale and form. By using a hipped roof on the north elevation of the second story, rather than a gable roof, the mass and scale of the upper story is not as visually imposing on the original structure and is in keeping with the character of the historic building. The rooftop addition is set back from the front of the building. The oriels overhang the lower floors, and are not in accordance with Design Standards 8.11." The Commission members, in unison, did not support the Staffs finding, regarding that the proposed alteration would be visually compatible with the surrounding structures in scale and form; but supported the Staffs finding regarding the oriel windows.
Ms. Blaes read the next Staffs finding: "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. Oriel windows are not a typical feature of Craftsman-style homes of this size and scale, and are not in accordance with Standard 8.11 of the Design Guidelines that states that additions should not overhang the lower floors of the original structure. The alterations in the windows and the relationship of the openings to the wall proposed by Ms. Wells meet the requirements of the ordinance; she has not prepared final drawings for the oriels." After a short discussion, Ms. Blaes asked that the minutes reflect that this finding was not applicable, due to the negation of the Staffs finding regarding the mass and scale of the proposed building.
Ms. Blaes continued to read the next Staffs finding: "Staff finds that stucco would be visually compatible with the other structures on the street, but agrees with the Subcommittee members that the relationship of the stucco to the openings must be appropriately detailed before stucco can be approved." The Commission members were unanimously in support of this portion of the Staffs finding.
There was some discussion regarding the material of the existing house. Mr. Littig said that it was unfortunate that brick would covered with stucco. Mr. Morgan said that he attended the Subcommittee meeting where evidence was presented regarding the poor structural integrity of the masonry. He said that the walls were out of scale, significant gaps were around windows, and the brick was severely damaged. The discussion continued, as Mr. Morgan explained what had to be done to prepare the exterior for stuccoing. He further said that, historically, many homes had stucco over masonry. Mr. Littig expressed his concern that the stucco would not be thick enough to cover the exposed bolts. He was assured, by Mr. Morgan, that it would be.
Ms. Blaes read the last Staffs finding: 'The proposed revision submitted by Ms. Wells involve a change in roof shape, window openings, and materials that are more compatible with the style of the structure and the adjacent properties. This will ensure continuity along Ely Place, which is visible not only to passers-by on this street, but by anyone using the parking lot south of Trolley Square. The rhythm of the spacing of this house and adjacent properties, as well as the orientation of the house, are not issues in this case." Ms. Blaes said that the Commission members had already advised the applicant to reduce the mass and scale of the proposed structure. She said that the Commission could probably support this finding, but the applicants would have to consider the suggestions made at this meeting.
A short discussion took place on the procedure, and the wording of a motion.
Ms. Deal moved that Case No.017-98 be tabled, based on the discussion at this meeting and the revised findings of fact made by the Historic Landmark Commission, and asked that the applicant come forth with revised drawings within sixty days. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Mr. Gordon, MS. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chair, did not vote. Ms. Devine was not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 018-98 at approximately 439-441 No. Main Street. by Todd Holloway, represented by Randy Lewis. Designer. and Rod Stephens. Contractor. requesting approval to construct a duplex.
Ms. 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 of this meeting. She said that Staff did not make a recommendation, at this time, since this meeting was the first review of the proposal. Ms. Giraud indicated that she had received an application to construct a home on the property to the north. She noted that the property owner would be using the same contractor, and would be heard at the next Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Ms. Giraud said that a drawing of that proposal, along with the applicant's proposal, was shown on the streetscape, which was circulated to the Commission members.
The applicant, Mr. Todd Holloway, was present, as well as his contractor Mr. Rod Stephens, and his designer, Mr. Randy Lewis. Mr. Holloway presented a display board of the proposed materials for the exterior of the new structure. He also showed a sample of the proposed Amsco double and single-hung windows. He pointed out the cedar shingles for the siding, the asphalt shingles for the roof, and the cultured stone samples. Mr. Stephens pointed out that on all window openings would have a 2"x6" exterior frame and he explained how the windows would be recessed.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by asking why the applicant chose a cultured stone, rather than a real stone. She said that the Commission would prefer actual materials rather than "pretend" materials. Mr. Lewis said that he, too, would rather use the real stone and said that quarried stone would be used, as he pointed to the pattern of the proposed rock on the drawings. Mr. Lewis said that he had discussed the materials with the applicant and the applicant would be willing to use the real quarried stone. He said that the colors would be in the brown tones, rather than gray tones. Mr. Lewis said that the style of "pseudo arts and crafts" traditionally used a stone and shingle combination. Ms. Deal asked if there were any elevations where the stone did not turn the corner. Mr. Lewis said that the stone would wrap around to the back of the proposed house.
Mr. Lewis addressed the issue of scale of the proposal. He said that a twin home would have a stronger scale presence on the property than a single family home. He said that the applicant deliberately tried to "de-monumentalize" the structure by off setting the planes of each facade, bringing the roof down, and adding some complexity to the design by breaking down the massing into smaller pieces.
• Ms. Mitchell inquired why the rear elevation shifted to a lap siding, and did not continue with the use of shingles. Mr. Lewis said that it would save a little money on the elevation that was "unobservable". He further said that the shingle material could be used. if the Commission made that recommendation.
Mr. Lewis described the window pattern on the proposed structure. The windows are observably different on the back side of the house and more contemporary on the west elevation. He said that the back of the house would only be seen from the back yard. He said the only way to change the proposal was to decrease the amount of glass and put in more traditional patterns. He added that the applicant would rather not do that, unless it was a recommendation.
• Mr. Morgan suggested that the applicant combine single hung and double hung windows which would change the pattern and bring a better design visually to that facade. He also suggested using the shingle material on all the elevations. Ms. Deal agreed and said that would help break up the massing. Mr. Morgan gave some additional suggestions. Mr. Morgan said that he believed that the proposed
structure would be handsome and one of the best that the Commission had seen for this very steep property.
• Ms. Deal said that she did not have any problems with a more contemporary and a different look on the back elevation. She said that she was concerned with the wide expanses of wall on the north and south elevations, which would be very visible from the street, even more so that the front elevation. Mr. Lewis said that there could be more windows on those side elevations. Ms. Deal said that she was not suggesting to throw more money at the project and made some suggestions how the windows could be repositioned.
Mr. Holloway said that he liked the project and appreciated the suggestions by some of the Commission members. He expressed his eagerness to expedite the process. Ms. Deal said that the proposal should go to Subcommittee again to refine some of the details. Ms. Blaes reminded the applicant that the Commission would have to address the findings of fact which were included in the Staff report regarding the massing, scale, and other issues. She said that the Commission would not ask him to come to another Subcommittee meeting just to tell him that the massing of the proposed twin home would be too large. Ms. Blaes said she realized that the applicant needed to have parameters which would be inclusive in the wording of the motion. She said that the Commission, if the members so desire. could structure the motion to say that the Subcommittee could authorize an administrative approval and any new drawings would be submitted through Staff. Mr. Morgan suggested that if the applicant was asked to return to the Subcommittee, he would bring working drawings which were about 80 percent complete, addressing some of the scale issues on the side elevations, and detailing the stone and how it would tum around the comers. Mr. Morgan said that he believed that the proposed structure would read very clearly as a contemporary building, reflecting the materials and character of today. The discussion continued.
Mr. Holloway concluded by saying that he could be flexible with some of the materials. He said that he agreed with some of the Commission's suggestions and hoped that the detailing could be worked out.
Mr. Stephens said that he had built many homes in Davis County and assured the Commission that the structure would be a quality building. He said that his landscape architect had won many awards in home shows in the region. Mr. Stephens said that the property would have a "classy" look.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no further 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
Ms. Blaes asked that the minutes reflect that she had to leave and the gavel was turned over to Ms. Deal, the Vice Chair, who will be the Acting Chair for the remainder of the meeting, and that a quorum of the Historic Landmark Commission was still present.
A short discussion followed.
Mr. Morgan moved for conceptional approval for Case No. 018-98, as presented, with the condition that the applicant returns to the Architectural Subcommittee to address the detailing issues, particularly on the side and rear elevations, and with a more complete set of construction drawings which would detail some of the suggestions made at this meeting. Further, if the applicant returns to the Subcommittee with sufficient enough of information on the drawings, that the Subcommittee could direct an administrative approval and proceed with the Certificate of Appropriateness. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Damery, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes and Ms. Devine were not present. The motion passed.
Adjournment of the meeting.
• As there was no other business, Ms. Deal 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 5:30 P.M.