SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Bruce Miya, Heidi Swinton, and Dina Williams. Sandra Hatch, Lynn Morgan, Robert Pett, and Dave Svikhart were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston and Lisa Miller. Ms. Janice Jardine, representing the City Council office, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Bruce Miya. Mr. Miya announced that each case will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the applicant and the commission, the applicant will be excused and at that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed and the commission will go into executive session to make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. Miya said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeal's process is listed on the back of the agenda.
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 cases 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. Deal moved to approve the minutes of April 17, 1996. It was seconded by Mr. Cartwright. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Deal, Mr. Damery, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams voted "Aye". Mr. Cooper abstained from the vote. Mr. Miya, as acting chair, did not vote. Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Pett, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS CASE
Case No. 001-94. at 1155 East 2100 South. Irving Schoolhouse Apartments. (formerly Irving School at 1179 East 2100 South). by John Smoot of Ewing Properties. requesting to change the exterior material from synthetic stucco to a wood product lap siding.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Current photo graphs of the project in progress were circulated to the members. Ms. Egleston suggested that stucco would relate more to the cast concrete elements that were on the old school building, than the proposed product.
Mr. John Smoot, the applicant, was present. He gave a brief overview of the project and of the proposed Hardiplank Horizontal Lap Siding. Mr. Smoot explained that if the commission would not approve the use of the proposed material on the exterior elevations, he would seek permission to use the Hardiplank on the interior corridors and on the interior of the individual apartment patios and balconies. Mr. Cooper expressed his concerns about using the proposed material on the walls of those areas where people would gather. Mr. Smoot indicated that due to the coarse texture of both materials, Hardiplank would be as user friendly as stucco.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Miya led the discussion and asked if the lap siding was also planned for the existing facade of the old school building. Mr. Smoot pointed out that any location on the site drawings for the entire project that were listed as using stucco, were now proposed to use the Hardiplank Horizontal Lap Siding. When Mr. Miya asked why this change was proposed, Mr. Smoot responded by saying that it was for economic reasons.
• Mr. Cartwright inquired if Mr. Smoot had any samples of the proposed material because it was a relatively new product, although the commission had approved the use of this product in the past. Mr. Smoot indicated that he did not have a sample of the product or a rendering of the building showing the proposed siding.
• Mr. Cooper indicated that he was familiar with the proposed product and added that it could be detailed identically to wood. He said that the bigger issue would be the visual appearance of the material and if it was the right product for this particular application. Mr. Cooper stated that the window treatment would change. He pointed out on the site drawings that the proposed stucco appeared to have wrapped into the window openings, but by using the proposed lap siding, every edge would have to be battened or have a trim piece of some sort. Mr. Smoot agreed. Mr. Cooper stated that that kind of information would be essential before the commission could act on this proposal. Others agreed.
• Ms. Swinton addressed the proposed change of appearance of the project and the relationship between the existing facade of the school building and the new buildings, if the lap siding was allowed. She also inquired about the construction schedule of the project. Mr. Smoot indicated that the application of the exterior veneer needed to commence in the next two weeks.
• Mr. Damery inquired more about the proposed product. Mr. Smoot indicated that there were two different thickness of the individual boards of Hardiplank Horizontal
Lap Siding; one would have a six-inch reveal and one would have an eight-inch reveal.
Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
Mr. Rawlins Young, chair of the Sugar House Community Council, stated that the massive nature of the Irving School site had been extremely important to the Sugar House community because it had been a very visual landmark. He said he would have preferred that the project be built with the same color of masonry on the entire exterior walls as the old school, rather than the allowed stucco. Mr. Young pointed out that the Sugar House area has the largest intact stock of pre-depression brick bungalow housing which was reflected in Irving School and cited some existing buildings which have a similar architecture and fabric as the old school, such as the Sugar House Library. He addressed the preservation programs that exist in the community. Mr. Young said he was opposed to the use of the proposed lap siding.
Mr. Steven Lester, a resident of the Sugar House area, stated that he was the former chair of a private, non-profit, foundation called, "The Friends of Irving", of which the sole purpose and the goal was to preserve, to resto re, and to restructure the Irving Jr. High School complex into a functional project within the community. He continued by saying that the Foundation's goal was to keep the Historic nature of the facility so that the neighborhood could have a transition between the old Sugar House community and the new shopping center a few blocks south of the school. He spoke of the agreement the Foundation had with the original developers of this project. He stated that if certain sections of the school were demolished, the Foundation would work with the developer to make certain that the Historic nature of the complex would be maintained and that the community would have some transition between the old and the new structures. Mr. Lester read a section of the minutes from the March 1, 1995 Historic Landmark Commission meeting where the developer addressed the proposed materials of the project, which was included in the staff report for this meeting. He said he was opposed to the proposed changes of materials and asked that the commitments made by the developer on March 1, 1995 be adhered to and followed as per the approval of this project.
Ms. Egleston said that the following comments were requested to be included in the record of this meeting:
Mr. Joel Peterson, who resides in the Sugar House area, said that he wanted the apartment complex to have as much masonry on the exterior, as possible.
Mr. Robert Pett, Chair of the Historic Landmark Commission, who was unable to attend, said that he was concerned about using lap siding because he thought the transition would be very difficult between the existing facade of the old school and the new buildings, particularly the east elevation as seen from 1200 East and from 2100 South Streets.
• Upon hearing no further requests to address the commission, Mr. Miya closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
The point of the discussion focused on the request to change the previously approved materials and the impossible task of approving the request without the appropriate information, such as the detailing of the proposed material. It was suggested that in some cases, the proposed material could work better than the originally approved material; but generally requests such as this would be for a lesser quality material. The discussion continued regarding the fabric of the Sugar House area, the color of the previously proposed synthetic stucco, and the desire of the community to keep the Historic tradition of Irving School.
It was pointed out by commission members that the previously approved site drawings were not the same as the buildings that were being constructed, such as the chimneys on the east elevation, banks of windows appeared to be missing, which would present the project with less penetration and more exposed exterior wall space for the synthetic stucco, some of the details of the roof forms seem to be missing, and that some recesses and projections appeared to be missing. In conclusion the commission members were concerned that if the partially constructed buildings had been altered from the approved plans, and more exterior wall would be exposed, the lap siding could be more compatible than large masses of synthetic stucco material. Ms. Egleston assured the members that she would pursue those issues raised by the commission.
Mr. Cooper moved to table the project for Case No. 001-94, pending the presentation of details by the developer for the application of the Hardiplank Horizontal Lap Siding to the building, also pending the outcome of a review by the staff of comparing the plans of the project which was approved by the commission, and the plans that were presented when the building permit was issued for the project, as it is currently being constructed. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cooper, Ms. Deal, Mr. Damery, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, as acting chair, did not vote. Ms. Hatch, Mr. Morgan, Mr. Pett, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Cooper recommended that the developer be put on notice by the City until the outcome of this review. He continued by saying that the commission has a responsibility to the community, and if the plans have been altered, there may be some action taken by the City.
Mr. Miya explained the appeal's process to the applicant.
OTHER BUSINESS
The discussion turned to several recent projects where changes of material were requested after the project was approved by the commission. Ms. Deal suggested that some form of the following comments be incorporated into a document, such as the Historic Landmark Commission's Policy Document: "It is the position of the Historic Landmark Commission that the selection of appropriate (exterior) materials is integral to the successful design of a structure. Choice of materials affect the scale, form, and texture of a building, as well as the detailing, the perception of massing, and integration into the streetscape. When a project is approved, it is approved in its entirety, as a unit. Parts of that whole unit may not be changed without affecting the complete project. Material selection is an early part of the design process and changes cannot be made without affecting the design. Applications to change a (major) material on a previously approved project without re-designing the project to be compatible and integral with the new material, may be considered, but will not be looked on favorably by the commission."
There were some suggested changes in the language, as this proposal continued to be discussed. Mr. Egleston said that she would bring this issue to the planning director's attention.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00P.M.