SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Special Meeting
On "Design Standards for Historic Properties" Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Lynn Morgan, Heidi Swinton, and Dina Williams. Bruce Miya, Robert Pett, and Dave Svikhart were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Elizabeth Egleston, Lisa Miller, and Cheri Coffey.
In the absence of the chair, the meeting was called to order at 12:00 Noon by Mr. Cooper, the acting chair. Mr. Cooper stated that this meeting would be a working session only, and although the public was welcome, the meeting would not be opened to the public for comment. Since there were no cases to be reviewed, no executive session was held.
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 in the order as comments 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.
REVIEW OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES CONTINUATION
Ms. Egleston presented a recap of the discussion at the March 6, 1996 meeting and a brief overview of the issues that were included in the agenda, which was passed to the members. She referred to the Historical Landmark Committee Policy Document, as well. Ms. Egleston circulated photographs of a variety of houses and buildings found in historic districts. She stated that the agenda would be followed and encouraged members to participate anytime throughout the meeting.
The comments outlined on the agenda will be included with the following comments that were made by the Historic Landmark Commission and by staff at this meeting:
Vinyl Siding on an Accessory Building
• It was not determined if the restrictions on vinyl siding should be included in the HLC
• Policy Document or the Design Guidelines.
• Vinyl siding could be allowed on soffits and fascia tor new construction.
• Vinyl siding could be allowed on an accessory building on a non-contributory site, determined on a case by case basis.
• Vinyl siding could be allowed on an addition to a non-contributing structure, determined on a case by case basis.
• Vinyl siding could be allowed on a non-contributing structure where there was little historic fabric remaining, determined on a case by case basis.
• Decision by the commission whether or not vinyl siding could be allowed, should be based on the policy document, the ordinance, and/or the guidelines, not just because the commission might not like it.
• Vinyl siding should not be allowed on an accessory building on a contributing property.
• Vinyl siding should not be allowed on a contributing existing structure.
• In some cases, the lack of detailing might destroy the historic integrity of a home more than the materials.
• Concerned about setting a precedent by allowing vinyl siding, then the door would be opened, and where would it stop.
• There does not seem to be much rationale when vinyl and vinyl clad windows are allowed and not vinyl siding.
• It the house was originally constructed using vinyl or aluminum siding on the exterior, then the same should be allowed for any addition or accessory building. However, if the house was originally constructed using wood siding or masonry, then covered with vinyl or aluminum, vinyl or aluminum should not be allowed on the addition or accessory building.
Windows:
• The Design Guidelines have to be clearly written regarding the detailing and the materials for windows.
• The front or primary elevation windows are very important character-defining features of a house. However, all elevations can be visible.
• The importance of using terminology that most people can understand, whether its using words such as primary, secondary, and tertiary elevations, or front, side, and rear elevations. There should be no confusion on the part of the applicant.
• A decision has to be made whether or not to allow aluminum, vinyl, or vinyl clad replacement windows on the secondary and tertiary elevations and wood windows on the front or primary elevation; whether or not to allow aluminum, vinyl, or vinyl clad replacement windows on all elevations; or whether or not to only allow wood replacement windows on all elevations.
• The fenestration pattern is important in window replacement.
• The homeowner should be encouraged to restore the original wood windows.
• The energy conservation isn't the real concern today for window replacement
• Steel windows for commercial use is acceptable. Doors
• Replacement metal doors should not be allowed on the front or primary elevations. A metal door going into a basement apartment or on the rear elevation is acceptable.
• Stamped metal automobile garage doors is acceptable.
• Wood man doors is acceptable for a garage. However, metal man doors for the secondary or tertiary elevations could be acceptable, determined on a case by case basis.
Roofs:
• If a standing seam metal roof is not original, it should not be allowed.
• A metal roof should be not allowed to replace a shingled roof.
• Aluma-lock roofing material should not be allowed.
• Architectural grade asphalt shingles for the roofing material is acceptable for state tax credits.
Fences:
• The door was opened which could allow the use of more vinyl fences because a vinyl fence was recently allowed in the front and sides on an historic property. The commission could be allowed to make that determination on a case by case basis, depending on the detailing, and the compatibility to the style of the house; or there needs to be strict guidelines for no allowance of vinyl fences in the front or sides of the property.
• The detection of vinyl fencing isn't difficult because wood fences do not reflect light like vinyl fences.
• When vinyl or vinyl clad windows are allowed, why can't vinyl fences be allowed?
• Fences are important elements because they can affect the appearance of an entire historic district.
• The commission needs to be articulate in its definition of a well-detailed wood fence versus a poorly-detailed vinyl fence. For the members of the commission to say that they just don't like it, would not be and acceptable explanation.
• Vinyl fences could be allowed in the rear or the sides not visible from the street.
• It was determined that an application requesting to construct a vinyl fence, the case should be reviewed by the full commission, in these early days of vinyl fencing.
• Wrought iron fencing should still be allowed.
• Tubular steel fencing could be allowed, depending on the details and the placement.
• Drilling into historic concrete or sandstone to place a wrought iron or tubular steel fence on top, should be discouraged because of the possible damage to the concrete or sandstone. This would be determined on a case by case basis. Some thought it should be included in the guidelines not to allow this, and some thought that it could be allowed. There was some controversy whether or not the fence should be inside the
• Concrete masonry units (CMUs) should not be allowed.
• Synthetic (vinyl) materials should not try to imitate original wood by having a wood grain.
Architectural Details
• Fiberglass or some new materials could be allowed in the front or primary elevation for the columns, if they are detailed appropriately with the style of the house, determined on a case by case basis.
• Some members indicated that only original material replacement should be used on the primary or front elevation, when possible.
• Fiberglass or some new materials should be allowed on the secondary or tertiary elevations on new construction.
• Color boards would be encouraged so the commission members could see the colors, but would not be required.
• The commission would not review color on a painted surface that could be changed. However, the commission would review color when it is incorporated into the body of the material.
• The public should be educated why the commission does not review color for a painted surface.
Other Miscellaneous Comments:
• Economic hardship should not be the guideline for enforcement, but there is a question whether or not it should be part of the decision-making process for the allowance of any synthetic materials.
• The commission should become more educated and more aware of new products.
• State tax credits would be helpful to owners of contributing properties for any restoration project, if available.
• The HLC is to preserve the historic integrity for future generations. Does the property owner really care about historic integrity?
• There should be no interruption of the rhythms of solids and voids. This should be covered in another area of the Design Guidelines.
• The indiscriminate demolition of good housing stock and the infill construction of large square "blocky" apartment buildings, is losing the historic integrity to a district, not what individuals are doing to their own homes.
• Does every single home have to be preserved as some "archeological pristine state" to keep the historic massing in a district?
• The guidelines should not be too restrictive, but should contain enough information so Historic Landmark Commissions in the future, would still have the design standards to follow to maintain consistency.
• The need for the commission to sound more sensitive and rational, responding to applicant's requests, and be more articulate when explanations are given for a decision that may be rendered, so the applicant can understand.
• The question was asked of how many synthetic materials could be introduced into a district before the district starts to lose the historic integrity? The district should not have a false sense of history.
• Part of the historic flavor of districts is the weathering and aging process.
• Property owners should be more educated to the value of doing historically sensitive things to a contributing structure that would provide people with the quality of life so they would want to continue to reside in an historic district.