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 William Littig, Oktai Parvaz, William T. Wright, Joel Paterson, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Mark Wilson. Wayne Gordon, Sarah Miller, Robert Payne, Soren Simonsen, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning 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
Ms. Rowland moved to approve the minutes from the January 5, 2000 meeting after a small correction is made. The motion was seconded by Mr. Littig. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Young were not present. Ms. Mitchell, Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 006-00. a request by Hamilton Partners. Inc., represented by Mark DeBry of MHTN Architects. to renovate the Lollin and Karrick blocks at 238 and 236 South Main Street. respectively.
Ms. Giraud pointed out an error on the agenda. The address of the properties should be corrected to 238 and 236 South Main Street.
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 although the upper stories of both buildings were still intact, the storefront area had lost its physical integrity and original features have been lost or obscured. Ms. Giraud said that alterations to the storefronts had already occurred by 1904, but the awnings hide the buildings' appearance in the historic photographs.
Ms. Giraud reported that the proposed renovation to the street elevation would include the following: 1) renovate the original stone and brick work on the Karrick blocks; 2) renovate the existing storefront on the Karrick block; 3) install a new storefront to replicate the c. 1905 storefront on both buildings and install a new entrance at 234 South Main Street; 4) replace the missing architectural details and decorations. (Mr. DeBry mentioned the use of fiberglass, if allowed); 5) replace the missing flagpole and building identification signs on the Karrick; and 6) replace the missing balconies and metal railings on the Karrick.
Ms. Giraud indicated that on the west elevation, the applicants were proposing the following: 1) remove the existing one-story structures and install new windows, lintel, and doors; 2) clean the brick work; and 3) infill three existing openings with salvaged brick.
Ms. Giraud said that on the north elevation the applicants were proposing to: 1) create a new main floor entry; and 2) reuse windows salvaged from the south elevation on this facade.
• Ms. Giraud noted that the property would be used for its historic purpose. She said that the developers were planning to use the upper stories as residential and the lower floors as retail.
Ms. Giraud proceeded through the staff analysis and findings, which were included in the staff report. She pointed out an error on No.7; it should read, "Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic material shall not be used."
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposed work, with the exception that fiberglass elements not be used to replace missing architectural features."
Mr. Mark DeBry was present, representing the applicants. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. DeBry stated that the applicants had debated the material to use on the pinnacles on the Karrick Building. He said that there is a company that makes cupolas, steeples, and other ornament of that type. Mr. DeBry said that he believed the original pinnacles were lead-coated wood with a brick base. He noted that the applicants decided to use lead-coated metal for the pinnacles, rather than fiberglass. He said that consistency with color was a problem with fiberglass.
Mr. DeBry spoke of the south elevation where twenty-one openings currently exist. He said that the plan was to remove some of the windows and reinstall them on the new north side which will be exposed when the structures were demolished creating the space for the 30-foot plaza. He added that the salvaged brick would be used to infill some of the openings on the north and west elevations. Mr. DeBry said that the buildings would be incorporated into one building.
Mr. DeBry said that the ceilings in the interior of the Karrick Building were very unique but they were sagging because seven columns were removed during a remodeling project. He added that the ceilings would be shored up and the columns rebuilt to make it "constructurally" stable. Mr. DeBry said that the lobbies and the elevator car would be very ornate, consistent with the 1905 era. Mr. DeBry noted that new fire exits and escapes would be developed.
Mr. DeBry concluded by saying that the project would be a "real bonus" to Main Street in the downtown area. He said that the applicants would like to progress with the proposal so building permits could be applied for in mid April.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by inquiring if the buildings would have exposed basement walls on the west elevation. Mr. DeBry said that they would. He indicated that through the architectural exploration, openings were discovered; some boarded and some bricked in. He pointed out that the three doorways, shown on the west elevation, should be exposed when the additions are demolished, with new doors added. Mr. DeBry said that the west elevation will be visible and the proposed double-doors would be accessible from the planned new parking terrace. Mr. Parvaz inquired further about the parking terrace. Mr. DeBry said the parking terrace would have three levels above ground and one level underground. He pointed out that the dotted line on the south elevation drawings depicted the one story addition that will be removed.
• Ms. Rowland asked staff if the lead-coated metal elements were acceptable. Ms. Giraud said that they were. Ms. Giraud said that another problem with using fiberglass was that it weathered differently than other original materials. Mr. DeBry also said that colors would appear brighter than desired.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said she thought it was commendable that "someone will take these two buildings on and turn them into retail/living units".
• Ms. Mitchell commended the architect for the clarity of the drawings and the clear presentation of the proposed project. She said that the plans were very easy to read.
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:
Mr. Randall Dixon, who resides at 726 No. Wall Street, stated that he was "very glad" for this proposed project. He noted that the buildings have been in "sad repair" for a long time. Mr. Dixon circulated an 1894 historic photograph of the buildings. He pointed out several differences in the 1894 photograph than what was in the 1904 photograph. Ms. Giraud said that Leyson-Pearsal first occupied the space in the Karrick Building in 1905. There was some discussion as the members reviewed the photographs. Mr. Dixon expressed his concern that as much as the original fabric be saved, such as the windows, and encouraged that the project be closely monitored.
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
Ms. Mitchell pointed out that the architect left the meeting. She said that the applicants had selected a period of 1905 in which to restore the buildings. Ms. Giraud said that the architectural drawings depicted that the new storefront would replicate the original, but the architect said that the buildings would replicate the 1905 era. She said that discrepancy needed to be pointed out to the architect. Mr. Wilson said that the 1905 photograph was not a clear document because the awnings in the photo covered the details on the front facade. Mr. Knight said that some of the stone panels have been removed from the front facade exposing historic material. Some Commissioners expressed their agreement with the proposal to renovate the buildings to replicate the 1905 era, but the discussion revealed that the original facade was more symmetrical, which was an important point.
A lengthy dialogue took place as the Commission members studied each of the photographs that were included in the staff report. The many contrarieties that were discovered and pointed out became topics for discussion.
The discussion turned to the wording of a motion. Ms. Giraud said that the application could be continued at the next meeting since the Commissioners had several unanswered questions regarding the project.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved to accept all the changes for Case No. 006-00, with a note that the pinnacle elements on the Karrick Building can be made with lead-coated metal. Further, this case can be continued at the next meeting to clarify the proposal regarding the first floor historic face on the front elevation of the Karrick Building. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Young were not present. Ms. Mitchell, Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 002-00, at 514 North 200 West. by Jeffrey and Shelly Hickam, represented by Robert L. Booker of Booker and Associates. attorneys, requesting approval to legalize vinyl siding, fascia, and soffits installed without a building permit.
This case was postponed at the owners' request.
Case No. 007-00, at 430 South Douglas Street. by David Van Dyke. represented by Sandra Hatch. architect. to construct a second-story addition on the house.
Mr. Knight 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 of this meeting. He stated that the applicant currently lives in the University Historic District and would like to remain in the neighborhood. Mr. Knight said that the applicant believes that the subject house would not be suitable for the current and future needs of his family.
Mr. Knight reported that the applicant proposed to remove the existing roof structure and rear frame addition of the house and to construct a new full second-story addition on top of the original masonry walls of the building. Mr. Knight further said that the applicant also proposed to remove the existing front porch of the house and replace it with a new shed-roofed porch with square supporting columns. He continued with a detailed explanation of the proposal, which is included in the staff report.
Mr. Knight pointed out that the applicant met with the Executive Council of the East Central Neighborhood Community Council to review the proposal. He said that a copy of a letter from the Community Council Chair, as well as a petition from neighbors who support the project, are included in the staff report.
Mr. Knight proceeded through the following requirements of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Section 21A.34.020(G): Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the Planning Director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the city:
Mr. Knight said that staff determined the following standards were most pertinent to this application:
Section 21A.34.020(G)(2): The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
Staffs discussion: This house has suffered from some of the alterations typically made to old houses in past decades. The original porch columns were replaced with wrought iron and metal pipe, and the porch gable, which probably matched that on the adjacent house to the north, was sided with aluminum siding. Nevertheless, enough of the historic fabric and design of the original house remains for the building to retain its fundamental historic character. Staff considers the house a contributing building in the district. The applicant proposes to maintain the exterior appearance of the first story of the building, including the primary materials, windows, and front entrance. The roof shape, overhanging eaves, and dormers of the historic building would be duplicated on the new addition. The rear frame addition is not a character-defining feature of the property, and the new rear addition would be compatible with the overall character of the building. The second-story addition is prominently located and would dramatically impact the character of the building. The house would be transformed from a one and one-half-story bungalow to a two-story foursquare. As was pointed out in the Architectural Subcommittee, either house form might fit into the overall neighborhood, but the building itself would change completely.
Section 21A.34.020(G)(9): Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment;
Staff discussion: The Historic Landmark Commission, Architectural Subcommittee, and Planning Staff have approved large additions to existing buildings in the historic districts. In 1998, the Historic Landmark Commission reviewed an addition to the duplex at 650 Ely Place. In that case, the applicants began to add a second story to an existing 1-1/2 story bungalow without obtaining a building permit. After the work was stopped, the applicants revised their design to reduce the overall mass of the addition by lowering the roofline and setting back the mass of the addition from the front of the building. In 1997 the Architectural Subcommittee reviewed large additions at 330 S. 1200 East and 565 Sixth Avenue. On 1200 East, a Tudor-style cottage was enlarged substantially with a rear addition. The Architectural Subcommittee required the applicants to lower the roofline of the addition and to use wall dormers (dormers that projected up from the outside wall plane) on the sides of the addition. On Sixth Avenue, a similar approach was used. The original house was substantially smaller that the surrounding houses, and the applicant reduced the mass of the addition by designing much of the addition to be inside the attic space. Ms. Mitchell inquired if the style of the house changed after the addition was added. Mr. Knight said that the Sixth Avenue house was a vernacular style structure and very small for the area. He said that when the owner added a gable with returns, giving the house a "Revival" look.
The applicant proposes in this case to use a different approach. The addition seeks to minimize the impact of the addition by integrating it into the existing building. The new work is differentiated from the old by the different materials, and by a belt course that is located at the former cornice line of the building. If the addition were to be removed at some point (admittedly an unlikely prospect), the original roof could be reconstructed on the building. As previously stated, the addition would have a drastic impact on this individual building, but staff believes that the proposed construction is compatible with the surrounding buildings, and that the overall impact of the work on the surrounding neighborhood would not be substantial, especially given the apparent neighborhood support for the project.
Mr. Knight stated that staff made the following recommendation: "The Historic Landmark Commission has reviewed and approved projects similar to this on contributing buildings in the historic districts, although in the cases that staff is aware of, there were mitigating factors, such as an unusually small existing building or major alterations that obscured the original design of the house, and the impact of the addition was minimized through setting the building back or lowering the roofline. The Historic Landmark Commission has also denied similar cases in which a large addition was proposed. In this case the Commission must determine if the applicant's desire for a larger house in order to meet the present and future needs of his family constitutes an acceptable justification for the proposed project. The Commission should further explore whether the impact that the proposed addition would have on this individual property is acceptable, given that the neighborhood would probably not be negatively affected. Finally, the Commission should determine if the design approach to this project is an acceptable way of minimizing the impact of an addition to a historic building and the surrounding neighborhood."
Mr. Knight continued with staff’s recommendation: "Depending on their findings with regards to these questions, Commissioners may wish to approve the design conditionally, with further details to be reviewed at the Architectural Subcommittee, or to deny the application, as proposed, and encourage the applicants to pursue additional design solutions that would have less impact on the existing building."
Ms. Mitchell said that she needed clarification of a section in the East Central Community Master Plan regarding protecting residential neighborhood character. She said that the implication was that if the house was not allowed to expand, it could possibly be demolished as being the kind of house that was not "livable" for today's needs. Ms. Mitchell inquired if there was any threat of demolition on that street. Mr. Knight said that the way the master plan was set up, demolition was an issue that was raised and the master plan addresses the issue in certain policies, which are more generalized. A copy of the appropriate page was included in the staff report.
Mr. David Van Dyke, the applicant, as well as his architect, Ms. Sandra Hatch, were present. Ms. Hatch said that the staff report covered the issues very well. She said that one of the issues that came up in the Architectural Subcommittee was whether or not this proposal had been effectively done.
Ms. Hatch circulated several photographs of houses that have a second-story additions to the house. She noted that in some of the photographs the additions are differentiated, but the original house still read through the additional space. Ms. Hatch spoke of the locations of the houses in the photographs.
Ms. Hatch pointed out that there would be more and more requests for second -story additions because people are wanting to live in the city, but need more living space to accommodate families.
Ms. Hatch said, "As far as the style of house, once you take the roof off, where do you go? Pick your direction and we picked one."
Mr. Van Dyke said he believed there was a need for single-family residences in the area, rather than creating more rentals. He spoke of the many rentals which were already in the neighborhood. Mr. Van Dyke said that he and his family had been living in the area in a rented house for the last six years and would like to remain in the neighborhood. Mr. Van Dyke stated that the only question he was asked, when he solicited signatures from property owners, was "if he was going to live there" and some expressed concerns if the building would be high enough to block the view.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by inquiring what the square footage was and what would it be with the proposed additions. Mr. Van Dyke explained that there was 1,053 square feet on the main floor and 300 square feet in the attic area. He added that the partially dug out basement Was not livable. Mr. Van Dyke said that, when completed, the living space would be about 3,000 square with the additions. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich commented that the space would be tripled. Mr. Van Dyke said that he and his wife have big families that come to visit and they wanted a place where the families could gather. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that there would be a "huge change of the character and how would this respond to the streetscape? understand we need to hash this out".
• Mr. Littig said that the photographs Ms. Hatch provided were not like this proposal. He added that the only one that related at all was the one with the "the stepped up front". Ms. Hatch said that when she took the photographs, she was not trying to find the same design as the planned project. She added that if the Commission "wants us to do one of those, we would do one of those". Ms. Hatch said that the applicant selected the foursquare style because it would "fit in" with the floor planning needs and also "fit in" in the district. Ms. Hatch said, "Once you have taken the top off you have altered the character of the original house. What goes back on top can be anything you want it to be." Mr. Littig said that he believed any one of the projects in the photographs were better examples that what the applicant was proposing. Mr. Van Dyke pointed out that plans look a lot different on paper. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that this project would "look even bigger when it would be viewed from the street than what it looks like on paper". Ms. Hatch said that at the turn of the century, a developer would build the same house design or a variation of the design on several lots in Salt Lake City. She noted that over time, an individual character began to show through and the houses would lose that "cookie cutter" look. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that "these" homes were designated as contributing even if they have a "cookie cutter" look to them; it is defined as an historic neighborhood.
• Mr. Wilson indicated that the style was not the issue to him. He said that the issue was to protect the historic character of residential neighborhoods. He quoted the following from the master plan: "Direction has been specifically requested to protect the existing single family neighborhood, as much as possible, from non-residential land uses." Mr. Wilson went on to say, "I don't know that making this addition protects it from non-residential land uses versus to not making the addition and allowing it to become a residential land use." Ms. Hatch said that this was a decision that the Commission had to make. Mr. Wilson pointed out that "this was not a decision". Ms. Hatch said, "Once you have taken the roof off then it could be any style. Ms. Hatch said that even if you modify the roof and add dormers to make the space more livable, the character of the original house would be altered."
• Mr. Littig said that the historic character of the house would be lost if the front porch was changed and the front facade would be totally different. He added that a small piece of the foundation would be all that was saved. Mr. Van Dyke said that a gabled room could be put on the new porch and it would look the same. Mr. Littig said that there have been many "handsome" second-story additions that have been allowed, where the structure retained its character defining features. Ms. Hatch said, "Give us the go ahead to put on the second story and then it can be anything you want it to be. Take the roof off, then we will go from there." She noted that the footprint would not change.
• Ms. Rowland inquired about the proposed windows. Ms. Hatch said that the windows would be the same type. She added that the existing dormer would be removed. Ms. Hatch believed that it was important if the Commission focused on the zoning of the area, as well as master plan that supports single-family dwellings.
• Mr. Wright said that one way to factor in the policies of the master plan, was that there is a strong desire in the central neighborhoods to build on and retain the existing families, so there would be more owner-occupied homes, and owners could be able meet the needs of their families. Mr. Wright said, " how the expansion would occur drops in the lap of the Historic Landmark Commission. We have dealt with this quite a bit in the city A lot of the areas where the city has needed to expand the housing stock in order to make them livable in today's generation. You should not read into that policy statement that you should approve whatever comes to you. I think he is pointing out that he is filling one of the goals in the master plan of staying in this neighborhood and raising his family by modernizing his house and making it livable."
• Ms. Giraud said that she was not working for the City when the University Historic District was formed, but one of the issues, at that time, was to attract more single families. Ms. Hatch said that she was on the Historic Landmark Commission when the district was designated. She indicated that people living behind and around the restaurants on 1300 East (Market Street Broiler) were tired of losing control and the historic district designation was a means of protecting themselves from further encroachment.
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:
• Mr. Randall Dixon, an interested party, stated that in the Capitol Hill area many homes were very small and to accommodate families, additions were constructed. He said that he added a full second story, but the addition was set back so the front part of the house retained part of the original roof. Mr. Dixon said that he sympathized with the applicant by wanting to maintain a single-family residence. He said that the Devereaux House had changed several times over the years. Mr. Dixon also said that the Commission would be dealing with this issue more. He concluded by saying the Commission would have to take many things into consideration.
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
Ms. Mitchell said that the Commission was looking at a proposal that would set a precedent for future additions in historic neighborhoods.
Mr. Parvaz said that the height meets the requirement in the City code. He said that in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City the house would have to preserve as much of the front elevation as possible, and the proposal does not do that. He further discussed this matter.
Mr. Littig said that there is a difference between "compatibility" and "domination". He added that the proposal would not be compatible to what the original house was. Ms. Mitchell made the comment that adding a second story would be acceptable, but not how this project was proposed. Mr. Littig concurred.
Ms. Mitchell said that after reading the housing report that will be presented later in this meeting, the important issue about preserving housing stock would be to designate more historic districts. She noted that being too restrictive preserving a neighborhood may become "very unpopular".
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that it has been mentioned that "we (Historic Landmark Commission) were on the black list of people and do not want families in historic neighborhoods, which is not the case". She said that it was the appropriateness of the remodeling project. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that she did not know if the subject house was the "right house for the applicants". She said that she hesitated to set a precedent.
The discussion continued regarding other projects that have been allowed.
Ms. Giraud said that she believed one of the Historic Landmark Commission's great strengths has been trying to assist people living with modern needs in an historic district and also maintaining some historical integrity. She said that additions have taken on a variety of forms. Ms. Giraud said that most of the additions have been in the rear. She pointed out that this proposal represented a "bigger change to a particular house than many of the additions that we have seen before".
Mr. Wilson said that he believed that the proposal seemed incompatible with the Design Guidelines for Historic Residential Districts in Salt Lake City. He read the following under the section for rooftop additions: 'When constructing a rooftop addition, keep the mass and scale subordinate to the scale of the historic building." Mr. Wilson agreed that the project would not be doing that. He added that the addition could be "handsomely" done. He added that it would be opening up the "flood gates" of buying small houses and turning them into "mansions". Mr. Wilson said that the demographics change. He believed that small homes were compatible with "viable small families, and families without children".
Ms. Rowland said that she had seen communities where the character was totally changed by allowing "trophy homes" to be built. She stated, "We make historic districts because there is something about the character of that neighborhood that many think is worth preserving." She further expressed her concerns about that matter.
The discussion continued relating to this proposal.
Mr. Wright referred to a comment made by Ms. Hatch when she talked about taking the roof off. He said that perhaps the applicant had more options than the one he submitted. Mr. Wright said that the proposal could be sent back to the Architectural Subcommittee to review further options. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the applicant showed very little flexibility at the previous subcommittee meetings. She added that there were many suggestions given.
Because there was some additional questions for the applicant, the Commission members opted to re-open the meeting to allow the questions to be asked. Ms. Hatch said that the applicant would like to expedite the project and would like an approval or a denial. Mr. Littig inquired if the applicant would return to the subcommittee with another design for the addition. Ms. Hatch said that applicant would not consider reducing the square footage. When some of the Commissioners talked about the rear yard, Ms. Hatch reminded them that a garage was proposed for the rear yard.
The discussion continued. It was discovered that the applicant would only have to pay a fee of $25.00 if he wanted to submit another plan.
Ms. Hatch said, "Before Mr. Van Dyke purchased the house, he had come into the Planning Office and asked if it was a possibility to put a second story on the house?" She said that he was told, at that time, that is was possible and would have to be reviewed. Ms. Hatch said that the applicant continued with the purchase the house. Mr. Littig said that the first time the applicant appeared before subcommittee, he was told that this plan was not "going to fly" and he came back, brought the same plan, with some minor revisions, for the second time. Ms. Hatch pointed out that he was told this before the proposal went to subcommittee.
There was much discussion regarding the interchange between the applicant and the members of the Architectural Subcommittee who were in attendance. Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich stated, "We cannot be responsible for them purchasing or not purchasing, that was totally his thing and we were very clear in telling him that it was subject to what that second floor looked like". Mr. Littig confirmed that statement. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that he was told that second-floor additions were not objectionable but perhaps that "this design would be objectionable".
Ms. Hatch said that the subcommittee was not the starting point. She added that he had been working on the project for a while. She stated, "I think it has dropped down into a very personal discussion and I think it is basically with these plans and whether an addition like this would be acceptable or not."
Ms. Mitchell said that she was not at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting so she could not speak for that, but "it seems to me that your client is being somewhat inflexible" with what was said at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting, and the discussion that has been held today. Ms. Mitchell said that this was not a "personal" issue; it was the nature of the proposal.
Mr. Knight said, "I spoke to him initially. I am the one who probably said, in principle, a second story could be acceptable. We routinely review them. I was thinking, conceptually, of a different kind of second story, and I referred him to the subcommittee so that those design questions could be answered at that level."
There was some further discussion regarding this matter. It was made known that the responses and recommendations made by the Historic Landmark Commission to Mr. Van Dyke were very clear. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich asked that the following statement be included in the record of this meeting: "Nobody, at least to my knowledge, is taking this personally and we should take exception to that. There is nothing against this young man or against his architect." Other members agreed with that statement.
Ms. Hatch said, "That is all we came to ask for is direction and I am just stating what my client's preference would be."
Ms. Mitchell reclosed this portion of the meeting and the Commission returned to executive session.
The discussion turned to the wording of the motion with several members of the
Commission expressing his/her opinions.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved to deny Case No. 007-00, as submitted, because of the loss of historic character in the massing on the front of the building, the loss of the historic front porch, in massing and character. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland.
There were some suggestions to amend the motion as the Commissioners continued their discussion relative to this matter.
Repeated final motion:
Mr. Littig moved to deny Case No. 007-00, as submitted, because of the loss of historic character in the massing on the front of the building, and the loss of the historic front porch in massing and character. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Young were not present. Ms. Mitchell, Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Presentation and solicitation of comments by Deeda Seed. Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development. of a revised housing plan for Salt Lake City.
Mr. Wright introduced Ms. LuAnn Clark, Deputy Director of the Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development. Ms. Clark indicated that with the recent changes in the City's administration, Ms. Seed was appointed to Chief of Staff and no longer the division director. Ms. Clark extended Ms. Seed's apologies for not being able to attend this meeting. Ms. Clark said that she was asked to review the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan with the Historic Landmark Commission, a copy was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Clark said that the division had been working on a housing plan for many years. She encouraged the Commission to make comments, suggestions, and recommendations to the housing plan, especially the sections dealing mostly with the Historic Landmark Commission. She pointed out that that the Planning Commission and other boards would hold public hearings on the housing plan. She said that amendments would be forwarded to the City Council for adoption.
Ms. Clark presented the following overview of the document of the sections that were most pertinent to historic preservation:
The Avenues area contains the best maintained units, which speaks in favor of the historic districts.
The areas with a higher need for rehabilitation were the Central City, West Liberty Wells, and State Fairpark neighborhoods. These areas will be the next target areas for the City.
She said that the vacancy rate for many years was as low as 2.8%, but is on the rise; and in 1999 it was at 7%. It was questionable what the vacancy rate would be during and after the Olympics. Mr. Wright said that there was a balance between the vacancy rate and the availability of affordable housing.
The people who ran the statistics for affordable housing said that the figure of 25,777 was unrealistic and too high as a goal for the City. There is an incredible need for affordable housing in Salt Lake City. Available property has become an issue in the City because many areas have been down-zoned from multi-family. Having the Geographic Information System (GIS) system working is a big goal for the City to incorporate new census data and population growth projects. It would keep track of neighborhoods and show where the money is being spent. The mapping already exists.
The City will provide historic preservation education to developers and property owners that includes information about rehabilitation resources, tax incentives of revolving fund low-interest loan programs that are available for technical and financial assistance, and encourage the rehabilitation of historic homes as an affordable, transitional, and housing stock option. Ms. Giraud suggested the expansion of National Register of Historic Places districts, so property owners could apply for state and federal tax credits. Mr. Wright said that would be the "carrot" for people.
Encourage coordinated programs for housing, planning, preservation, and rehabilitation that work together to ensure protection of the City's housing stock in residential areas by identifying areas that need particular attention. The City would strengthen its relationship with the Utah Heritage Foundation blending the two money sources together. Ms. Mitchell suggested that the Salt Lake Chapter of the American Institute of Architects become an active partner.
To create a specific design program for selected parts of the city. She said that a committee would be formed to involve historic preservation. Ms. Mitchell said that there was no mention of a bicycle-oriented plan. Mr. Wright noted that The City did not have such a plan at this time.
The following amendments were recommended by members of the Commission and staff:
• Page 14, No. 5, "Encourage homeownership options allowing for equity-building alternatives such as condominiums, co-ops, co-housing, mutual housing, and other models" could also fit under Housing Stock Preservation, Rehabilitation, and Replacement on Page 8.
• Page 16, tie the SROs (Single Room Occupancy), to historic preservation. Mr. Wright suggested a policy or some statement about the support for SROs for adapted reuse of some historic properties.
• Page 16, No. 7, "Require, as part of the zoning ordinance evaluation criteria for rezoning requests, an analysis of the effect of proposed rezonings on housing affordability" may also have an effect on historic preservation. Mr. Wright said that to do such an analysis as part of a rezoning may cost thousands of dollars and staff time to try to determine what the impact of a zoning change may be.
• Page 18, No. 4, "Higher densities in affordable and mixed income housing developments if the developer incorporates features to minimize intrusion such as buffer landscaping, useable open space, on-site amenities, support services, underground vehicle parking, etc." Encourage developers to look at preservation rather than cleared sites where the existing buildings had been demolished.
• Page 10, No. 8, "When demolition of residential properties is necessary on publicly owned properties provide salvage opportunities for architectural building features including doors, windows, hardware, plumbing fixtures, and ornamentation that may be reused on other rehabilitation projects." Expand that to buildings under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission, in historic neighborhoods or landmark sites.
• Page 12, under Implementation Strategies regarding "Brownstone styles with studios". A correct description needed to address the style of the buildings. The "brownstone," as defined by architectural historians, refers to the rowhouses historically popular in densely urbanized cities such as Baltimore and Brooklyn. Often the buildings were constructed of brown sandstone, hence the name. There were a wide range of architectural styles used for rowhouses; not all were constructed in the "brownstone" style as used by architectural historians. These types of row housing were not historically popular for residential buildings in Salt Lake City, but commercial examples exist that could be adaptively re-used for housing or mixed uses.
• Page 11, No.7, "Ensure new construction meets Fair Housing Act requirements and work toward universal visibility of all structures." The was a question whether or not this should be in a housing policy because there may be a liability problem. Ms. Clark said that is already part of the new construction building permit process under the Federal Fair Housing Act.
• Review neighborhoods for potential historic district status to be implemented into the housing design section.
• Include a glossary of terms.
Ms. Clark concluded by saying that she appreciated the comments from the members and the opportunity to present the housing plan.
Opportunity to review and comment on the nominations to the National Register of Historic Places of the "Thomas and Mary Hepworth" house at 725 West 200 North. and the "Third Presbyterian Church Parsonage" at 1068 East Blaine Avenue.
Ms. Giraud stated that Salt Lake City is a Certified Local Government and according to federal law, the Historic Landmark Commission is suppose to comment on any National Register of Historic Places nominations. She said that the recommendation involves the local people in the national/federal process. Ms. Giraud stated that there would be no regulatory review with a national register nomination. She reported that staff recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to Utah State Historic Office (SHPO) for both nominations.
Mr. Parvaz said that the nomination forms were very informative and he read every word. The nomination form referred to photographs that were not included in the nomination given to the Historic Landmark Commission for review. Mr. Parvaz said that, although he enjoyed reading the documents, the nomination forms should have been completed before they reached this Commission for review. Ms. Giraud explained more of the approval process for register nominations. Mr. Knight said that staff was still trying to work with SHPO to make sure the Historic Landmark Commission receives complete nominations for review.
Mr. Littig said that the intention of the Historic Landmark Commission was not to begin the process to convert these to bed and breakfasts or any other commercial use by making them national register sites. Ms. Giraud said that they would have to be locally designated before a conditional use was requested to do that.
Motion:
Ms. Rowland moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State
Historic Office (SHPO) that the "Thomas and Mary Hepworth" house at 725 West
200 North, and the "Third Presbyterian Church Parsonage" at 1068 East Blaine Avenue be included on the list of National Register of Historic Places. It was seconded by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Young were not present. Ms. Mitchell, Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Discussion of forming a subcommittee to examine the administrative process for projects in the City historic districts.
Mr. Wright stated that the Commission received a copy of a letter from Polly Hart and his response to that letter, which was included in the staff memorandum, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Wright said that in his response, he recommended the following two policy changes:
1. The zoning ordinance provides that the Planning Director or designee may approve Certificate of Appropriateness. The Planning Director's only designees shall be Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, both trained preservation planners.
2. Approvals of Certificate of Appropriateness will require a site visit by the Planning Director's designee, unless adequate photographic documentation and detailed plans are available for review.
Mr. Wright suggested that a subcommittee be formed to review the administrative approval process. Mr. Wright said that the chair was not present but staff talked to Mr. Wayne Gordon and he expressed his willingness to serve as chair on the subcommittee. Mr. Littig also offered to serve on the subcommittee. Mr. Wright said that there is hope of having representation from the community councils, contractors, and other professionals.
The discussion led to some suggestions and recommendations, and to make certain that the administrative approval process was consistent with the language in the City's zoning ordinance.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Mitchell asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Rowland so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:00P.M.