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 Peter Ashdown, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Soren Simonsen, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon, Amy Rowland, and Mark Wilson were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner.
Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Mr. Simonsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Simonsen asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. 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 April17, 2002 meeting, as amended. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Gordon, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Simonsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 012-02. at 12 West 500 North. by Charles M. England. represented by Vardell Taylor of Aluminum Lock Roofing, Inc. requesting legalization of an aluminum interlocking shingle roofing system installed without a permit. The property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Ms. Lew 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 Staff was contacted, in early April of 2002, by an officer in the City Zoning Enforcement Division who initiated enforcement on the property because no permits were obtained from the Historic Landmark Commission Staff or the City to replace the roof. She said that upon receMng notice of the violation, the Aluminum Lock Roofing Inc., ceased work and contacted the City to acquire the appropriate approvals. Ms. Lew reported at the time, that the Historic Landmark Commission Staff was unable to issue an administrative approval since the metal roofing material failed to comply with the criteria outlined in Section 21A.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning ordinance and the Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. Ms. Lew stated that the property owner is now requesting legalization of the metal shingle roof from the Commission. She added that the property is zoned R-2, a Single and Two-Family Residential zoning district.
Ms. Lew stated that according to the 1980 historic survey of the district, the brick Tudor cottage was built in 1936 for Ira B. Mann. She pointed out that the one and one-half story house is characterized by steeply pitched gables, rounded windows, door arches, and general visual asymmetry.
Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020(E) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance which requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for any alteration to the exterior appearance of a structure on property located within a locally established historic district.
Ms. Lew also referred to Section 21A.34.020(G) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, 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:
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects.
Staff's finding of fact: Although the function of a roof is to protect a structure from the elements, it also can be extremely important in defining the overall character of the building. Therefore, when a roof is too deteriorated to repair, the new material should match the old in color, texture, and other visual qualities. If there is no evidence to indicate the existence of a former metal roof, such materials have typically been determined incompatible in Salt Lake City's historic districts because of their texture, application, and reflectMty. No evidence has been presented that shows the existence of a former metal roof at this location. Therefore, re-roofing the house with an alternative roofing material, such as metal, is incompatible with the original appearance of the house and historic character of the neighborhood. Wood and asphalt shingles are far more compatible as substitute roofing materials than metal shingles.
10. Certain building materials are prohibited including the following:
a. Vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and b. Any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials;
Staff's finding of fact: In this case, the use of a metal roof is similar to the application of aluminum or vinyl siding and only covers failing material, rather than replacing the roof with a material that conveys the same visual appearance of the original roof.
Ms. Lew pointed out that in Section 7.0 Roofs of the Historic Landmark Commission's Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, the policy states the following: The character of a historic roof should be preserved, including its form and materials whenever feasible.
Roof materials: When repairing or altering a historic roo4 one should avoid
removing historic roofing materials that are in good condition. Where replacement is necessary, such as when the historic roofing material fails to properly drain or is deteriorated beyond use, one should use a material that is similar to the original in style and texture. The overall pattern of the roofing material a/so determines whether or not certain materials are appropriate. For instance, cedar and asphalt shingles have a uniform texture, while standing seam metal roofs cause a vertical pattern.
The color of the repaired roof section should a/so be similar to the historic roof material. Wood and asphalt shingles are appropriate replacement materials for most roofs. A specialty roofing material, such as tile or slate, should be replaced with a matching material whenever feasible.
Unless the existence of a former metal roof can be demonstrated, either by existing material or through historic documentation such as photographs, the use of metal shingle roofs on contributing structures is not allowed because of their texture, application and reflectMty.
Staff's discussion: Due to the fact that few original residential examples of metal roofs exist today, this roofing material does not seem to have been very popular in Salt Lake City. The Commission should evaluate whether using a non-historic building material to cover the roof is appropriate and the potential for setting a precedent with this case.
Staff’s finding of fact: A metal shingle roof would be incompatible with the original roofing material of the structure. The metal shingles do not possess the same physical properties (such as composition, application and texture) or historical authenticity of a wood or asphalt shingled roof. Although removal of a roof that is too deteriorated to repair may be appropriate is some cases, replacing it with a new material that does not convey the same visual appearance is not.
Ms. Lew offered the following Staff recommendation: "Staff finds that the proposal to legalize the metal shingle roof at 12 West 500 North does not comply with the City's historic preservation policies as stated in the staff report and is inconsistent with the architectural character and historic integrity of the building. Staff also believes the legalization of an inappropriate roofing material would set a negative precedent for the neighborhood that could be very detrimental to Salt Lake City's historic districts as a whole. Therefore, Staff is opposed to the legalization and requests the Historic Landmark Commission direct the applicant to consider a compatible substitute roofing material and obtain the necessary building permits from the City."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the staff. Upon hearing none, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Charles M. and Helen S. England, as well as their representative, Mr. Vardell Taylor, were present.
Mr. England stated the following: "As you know, freedom is not free. The freedom to own property and to make it the way we want. We did not move into a historical area. The historic area captured our residence. I have earned the right to be free. The roof was leaking and like a set of tires, we decided that it was time to replace it."
Mr. England said that he talked to a man, who re-roofed a neighbor's house last Fall, and gave him a bid for the installation of Aluminum Lock Roofing in the amount of $6,800.00. He circulated his paperwork for the bid to the members of the Commission and Staff. Mr. England commented that he was cognizant of various roofing materials because he had been in the apartment business.
Mr. England stated, "I am 70 years old and I don't want my wife running out trying to scrape snow off a roof. I want that taken care of so that she would not be bothered with this problem. The Aluminum Lock Roof is such a roof. In the material it says that not too many in the area have been put on. We can compare that with Chevrolets and Cadillacs. There are many more Chevrolets around than Cadillacs. Not saying that Cadillacs are of a less desirable thing, it is the fact of money. The aluminum roof cost $3,000 more than what was on there, which was only attached on one side and the other three sides are free to blow off."
Mr. England displayed roofing material that had blown off a house two doors away which he gathered from his yard. He said that Aluminum Lock would not blow away because each shingle is hooked on all four sides. Mr. England also talked about the fire issue of asphalt and cedar shingles, where the Aluminum Lock shingles would not burn.
Mr. England spoke of the Utah State Historical Park where people could go see how life was years ago and enjoy historical things such as gravel streets, horses, period clothes, pigs, and gardens.
Mr. England continued by staying: "Now we have tried to go along with the historical thing. It seems like it is kind of a flawed thing. I had lunch with a former member of this body. He said that he had been on this committee for ten years, and now he has moved on, possibly because he realized that this is a flawed concept. You cannot have two masters; you either obey one and let the other go or let the other go and obey one."
Mr. England said that he and his wife bought their home because they were able to walk to work. He said that that he has tried to maintain some historical elements on his home and in his yard. Mr. England said that he has tried to cooperate with the City. He talked about a two-story garage that he wanted to build, where he and his wife could have room to pursue their hobbies. He said when he contacted someone in the City, he was told he could not build the second story. Mr. England said they cooperated and built a single-story garage and now children climb up on the fence and get on the roof. He also said that people throw live cigarette butts on the roof because of the height. Mr. England circulated several photographs and pointed out the portable carport in the front of his home, that he erected, so his car would be protected from the dropping cherries and apples off his trees. He added that he did not want to "chop them down". Mr. England said that someone from the City told him that he had to remove the carport and invited Mr. England into the office to discuss the matter. Mr. England said that he removed the carport so there was no reason to go to the office. He indicated that he had to sell it at a big loss.
Mr. England claimed that he does not know what needs a permit and what does not. He added that the former member of this body told him he did not have to have a permit. Mr. England said that there is no consistency to the permit process.
Mr. England talked about the metal roofs in the neighborhood. He said that there is a raised seamed roof that he did not like at all. Mr. England stated that he could see the largest metal (copper) roof in the neighborhood from his front window, which is the dome of the State Capitol Building.
Mr. England discussed the solar panels he installed on the roof of his house in July of 1980 and he was the recipient of a $5,000 federal tax rebate during the energy crisis.
Mr. England stated, "we did not move into an historical district the material said, that the public wanted this. We have some fanatical people in our neighborhood. They're not capable of working. They're not capable. But they like to go to these meetings for some entertainment, for something to do. These meetings are scheduled when us, working stiffs, are working. We can't go there. We would be fired from our jobs." Mr. England said that he had to ask special permission from his boss to be at this meeting this evening. He continued by saying, "It's not practical to go to these meetings and vote against this stuff. So, I say that it wasn't really the public that wanted it. The gentlemen, that I talked to, who was a member of this board for ten years, said there's a way to get rid of the whole concept and he told me how. So, with that, I’ll adjourn. Mr. England expressed appreciation to the Commissioners for their time.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for Mr. England. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by inquiring about the bid Mr. England received to re-roof his home and if it included removing the solar panels. Mr. England said the price included $360.00 if he wanted to remove the solar panels. He said that he did not want them removed at this time, but wanted enough cartons of shingles to match the rest of the roof, plus the trim, in the event that he wanted to replace the panels with more modern ones.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if the applicant approached the contractor about the appropriate licenses or building permits before work was started. Mr. England said that it never crossed his mind because the contractor who built his garage had taken out the permits. Mr. England stated, "when you get a set of tires, you don't say 'tire man have you got a business license, have you got insurance, is this zoned for that?' You don't do that. You say the roof's leaking. I need a new roof. I want the very best. Put it on." Mr. England said that he told the contractor that the home was located in an historic district. Mr. Ashdown clarified that Mr. England was under the assumption that all the necessary permits had been obtained.
• Ms. Mickelsen inquired when the England's purchased their home. Mr. England said that it was in 1978. He said that Staff mistakenly said that it was in 1982 or 1984.
Mr. Simonsen excused Mr. England and asked if anyone else wanted to address the Commission. Ms. Helen England came forward.
Ms. England pointed out that there were two other homes within two blocks of their home that have "this type of shingle" on them. She also mentioned she saw a roof with big sheets of metal with a ribbed roof only one-half block away. Ms. England said that three or four new homes were also constructed on the same street. She said that she did not know how those homes could be built in an historical district "if that is what it is".
Ms. England also talked about the vinyl and metal windows and the metal doors she discovered throughout her neighborhood. She stated that they still had wood windows with leaded glass and the fact that her husband had built and installed storm windows made out of wood.
In conclusion, Ms. England stated, 'We have tried to keep our home as historical as we could. We did not want to tear the shingles down and have to replace all that wood. We would appreciate very much to be able to keep the roof. The contractor only has about one hour's work left to do. It has sat for two and one-half weeks now.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for Ms. England. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Ashdown stated that new construction is permitted in an historic district. Ms. Giraud added that as long as it goes through the review process and obtains a permit.
• Ms. Mickelsen said, “This group is very willing to work with people if they come to us first."
Mr. Simonsen excused Ms. England and asked if anyone else wanted to address the Commission. Mr. Vardell Taylor, the contractor, came forward.
Mr. Taylor said that he wanted to apologize for making the Commissioners have this meeting since this was the only case on the agenda. He stated, 'This lack of permit thing is ultimately my responsibility I just failed to do that." Mr. Taylor added that being in an historic district "did not set off an alarm with me".
Mr. Taylor explained that the shingles on an Aluminum Lock Roofing System are individual and look like a regular shingle. He said that this type of roofing system is not a rarity. Mr. Taylor referred to his letter of April 12, 2002, where he pointed out the other metal roofs in the boundaries of the historic district, a copy of which accompanied the staff report. He further described those properties. Mr. Taylor said that when he saw those roofs, he assumed he could install the Aluminum Lock Roof on the England's home. He said that because the shingles for this roofing system are individual and many people do not recognize them as being aluminum. Mr. Taylor indicated that after a short period of time, the finish on the aluminum would oxidize and would lose much of the metallic sheen that they had initially. He said that he imagined the sheen is one of the major complaints. Mr. Taylor passed around samples of the aluminum shingles. He said that some were new out of the box and some were from a thirty-year-old installation, where he pointed out that the older ones had lost their sheen.
Mr. Taylor said that for years, homes were roofed with wood cedar shingles treated with graphite and oil; they were all shades of gray or black. He indicated that Mr. England chose a gray colored shingle because it looks more authentic, in keeping with the architecture of the house. Mr. Taylor said that Mr. England was not "a hard sell". He added that the features of the Aluminum Lock Roofing System met Mr. England's criteria for a roofing material. Mr. Taylor said that the England's already have two layers of shingles on their home and aluminum would be the lightest material to use. He noted that snow slides off aluminum, and the locking system has a higher wind tolerance than
asphalt shingles. Mr. Taylor said that it would be a much greater expense for the England's to tear off the layers of shingles and re-sheath the roof.
Mr. Taylor said that he hears the same thing from many people who are close to retirement age, that they want peace of mind, and do not want to worry about having to replace the roof in fifteen years.
Mr. Taylor talked about the fire hazard of wood or asphalt shingles. He indicated that there were many communities and some states that outlaw wood shingles on new construction because of the fire danger. Mr. Taylor also pointed out that aluminum was more energy efficient than asphalt or wood because it reflects the sun’s heat in the summer and helps keep the house cool with a natural air conditioning.
Mr. Taylor asked the members of the Historic Landmark Commission to consider the things they had heard and let the England's have the roof that they want.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for Mr. Taylor. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Mickelsen asked about removing the existing layers of shingles. Mr. Taylor said that the England's did not want to have to remove the old layers and that is why aluminum roofing was a good option for them. Ms. Mickelsen clarified that with the completion of the new roofing system installation, there would be three layers of shingles on the roof of the house. Mr. Taylor concurred.
• Ms. Giraud reported that the code was changed in January of 2002, and there could only be two layers of shingles on any given roof. Mr. Taylor said that he did not know that. He said, "Just add that to my fine."
• Mr. Ashworth inquired if the contractor had been fined for the violation of not obtaining a permit and using a material that was not in compliance with the code. Mr. Taylor said that he had not been informed about the fine at this point and did not know what was pending. Mr. Ashworth asked Staff how a fine would be levied. Ms. Giraud said if the Historic Landmark Commission approves the request, the fines would become a building permit issue determined by the building inspectors. She added that she did not think the building inspectors could approve the material because it would not be in compliance. Ms. Giraud continued by saying that if the Historic Landmark Commission does not approve the roof, there probably would not be a fine if the owner and the contractor take steps to comply with the code; the building code, as well as any conditions placed on an approval by the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Taylor asked the Commissioners to consider one more point, that it would take ten layers of aluminum shingles to equal the weight of one layer of asphalt shingles. He added that the code had been the same for many years to allow three layers of shingles and that he was unaware of the change.
• Mr. Knight asked Mr. Taylor if he usually pulled permits when he did work within the city limits. Mr. Taylor said that he generally did, but he did not always work in the city. He said again that he must have had a mental lapse, "I just spaced it." Mr. Knight explained that if a permit had been pulled before the work was started he would have been informed about the code change and the illegal material. Mr. Taylor said there are probably 100,000 homes in the city that have at least three layers of asphalt shingles on them. He added that he understood the weight issue.
• When Mr. Simonsen asked again about the layers of shingles, Mr. England said that there is one layer of cedar shingles and one layer of asphalt shingles on the roof. Ms. Giraud warned the members that the Historic Landmark Commission had no purview over this issue. Mr. Simonsen stated that there is not a jurisdiction in the state that does not require a building permit for a roof replacement because it is State law, however some cities enforce it more than others. Mr. Simonsen said that every jurisdiction is governed by the State and the International Building Code. Mr. Taylor asked about the jurisdictions. Mr. Simonsen clarified that the jurisdiction included every city, county, school district, and any special taxing district. Mr. Simonsen said that this was not the first time the Commission had come across this type of situation, "but to me, it is quite infuriating to see people operate without the proper permits". Mr. Taylor said he wished he would have obtained one.
Mr. Simonsen excused Mr. Taylor since the Commission had no additional questions or comments for him.
[Please note that the three testimonies of the applicants were written in the above manner for easier reading. Ms. England and Mr. Taylor actually spoke in the public comment portion of the meeting.]
Mr. Simonsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that she was not a ''fanatic" about the area but "loved" livng in an historic district, and "loved" many of the things that the Historic Landmark Commission does. Ms. Gardner stated that there has not been one problem with the roof on the England's home. She encouraged the Commission to legalize the installation of the aluminum roof on the England's house, if there was a way. Ms. Gardner stated that the roof would be "nice" for the owners and "nice" for the neighborhood. Mr. Christensen inquired if Ms. Gardner was concerned about setting a precedent in the neighborhood. She answered by saying that she did not think it would because there are exceptions to every circumstance and the applicants did not know about the permit. Mr. Littig talked about the consequences of not pulling a permit. Ms. Gardner said that she did not want to set a precedent of people not pulling the required permits.
Upon hearing no additional comments, Mr. Simonsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission should not consider the issue of whether the work has been completed or not but how it conforms to the historic guidelines and the merits of the case from the facts that have been presented.
Mr. Young said that many of the buildings that have been cited to have metal roofs probably predate the area becoming an historic district and so they would have been "grandfathered" in. He added that any applications of metal roofs on current projects, for a contemporary or a traditional design, or an old development would still come under the guidelines of the Historic Landmark Commission, and when done properly, come before the Preservation Staff to get the appropriate counsel advising them what direction to take. Mr. Young referred to the comment that "the price of freedom is not free". He indicated, "that there is a lot of free information out there for someone who is willing to go out and get it". Mr. Young believed that being "proactive rather than being reactive becomes a great mission of the Commission".
Mr. Ashdown said that he did not object to the metal roof itself. He added that he did not think it was unattractive or out of character with an historic district. What Mr. Ashdown said he objected to was the lack of checking into the permit process. He expressed his concern that there would be no penalty if the Commission approves he request. Mr. Ashdown said, "if it is not painful enough for the contractor it would be a modus operandi where he would go into an historic district and think there would not be a problem. I can get this through. I've gotten it through before. He obviously has no interest in selling shake or asphalt roofs because he is in the aluminum business." Mr. Ashdown also said that he was sympathetic to the needs of senior citizens not having to worry about the snow or a replacement roof.
Ms. Giraud stated that there is a chance that the contractor would be charged a double permit fee. She explained that fines are usually processed through the City's Zoning Enforcement Division and goes unresolved for a period of time and a lien is usually placed on the property. She added that Staff tries to consider the concerns of the public. Ms. Giraud said that she lived on a street where many houses have metal roofs and after five years, are still very shiny.
Mr. Littig expressed his concerns about the aesthetics, and reflective aspect, and especially the valleys in the roof that appear to be a galvanized metal. He pointed out that galvanics could be an issue with the incapability of materials.
The Historic Landmark Commission agreed to reopen the meeting to the public due to additional questions for the contractor. Mr. Simonsen reopened the meeting. Mr. Taylor said that the metal in the valleys of the roof is aluminum and not galvanized so there is no incompatibility of materials. Mr. Littig thought it looked very shiny. Mr. Taylor said that the material could be finished. Since there were no more questions, Mr. Simonsen reclosed this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Christensen said the bigger issue is that three layers of shingles cannot be legalized. Mr. Simonsen said be believed that issue is beyond the Commission's purview.
Ms. Giraud stated that Staff has been approached by many requests for metal roofs. She added that historically residences in historic districts have wood shingle roofs. Ms. Giraud mentioned her conversation with an architect who is a former member of the Commission about asphalt roofs, which have been in existence for more than fifty years. She mentioned that the module is the same as a wood shingled roof and she said that the former member agreed. Ms. Giraud said that standing seam or ribbed metal roofs have not been allowed because the pattern is very different. She stated that members of past Historic Landmark Commissions have expressed to her that even though the module of some metal roofs are similar, the material looks very different than wood or asphalt shingles. Ms. Giraud said that fact has been a controversial issue.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if the prohibitions for vinyl and aluminum actually pertained to siding materials. Ms. Giraud said that it generally did. Mr. Simonsen said that the commentary under roofs in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City says that the overall pattern of the roofing material is important. He said it cites, specifically, that cedar and asphalt shingles have a uniform texture, while standing seam metal roofs cause a vertical pattern. Mr. Simonsen said that he believed the pattern of the Aluminum Lock Roof is consistent with wood or asphalt shingles. He said that metal is not uncommon as a building material. Ms. Giraud said metal was not a common building material for residential structures in Salt Lake City. She noted that it was used more for commercial structures. However, Ms. Giraud added that residential use is common in other parts of the country.
Mr. Young concurred and said his experience has given him opportunities to look at a lot of buildings around the city and residential construction, and what appears to be the original metal roofs, is less than five percent. He also said that the asphalt shingle roofing system originated about 1905.
Mr. Parvaz mentioned that in every joint of the Aluminum Lock Roof there are two grooves. He said he could not remember seeing that before and expressed concern about setting a precedent for that design. Mr. Simonsen stated that most cases reviewed by the Commission are generally on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Simonsen commented that some of the specifics in the guidelines are vague which creates challenges for this Commission, especially for the subject case.
Mr. Young stated that the Secretary of the Interior guidelines prohibits vinyl and metal being used as replacement building materials because those materials do nothing to correct the problem which may be causing leaks. He added that they only conceal it to the point where the problem continues, but unseen. Ms. Mickelsen noted that the structure would continue to deteriorate. She said that she would have been more comfortable if the applicant would have stripped off the layers of shingles, re-sheathed, and applied the metal roofing material. There was some discussion that this issue would have to be reviewed by Building Services.
Ms. Mickelsen said that she did not think that the roof was compatible and did not feel that the Commission should rewrite the guidelines for this case.
(Ms. Heid excused herself for the remainder of the meeting.)
Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 012-02 in acceptance of the findings of fact in the staff report that the Aluminum Lock Shingle Roofing System, that was installed at 12 West 500 North, does not comply with the architectural character of the existing building and therefore remains an illegally replaced roof. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Young voted “Aye”. Ms. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, and Mr. Protasevich were opposed. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson were not present. Mr. Simonsen,
as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Simonsen pointed out the appeals process found on the back of the agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS
Conditional use application for the Orpheum Theater. also known as the Promised
Valley Playhouse.
Mr. Ashdown inquired about the notice of hearing he saw in front of the Promised Valley Playhouse. Mr. Knight said that on May 2, 2002, the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on Petition No. 410-585, by Zions Securities Corporation who is requesting a conditional use to construct a commercial parking lot at 132 South State Street, without retail on the ground level street frontage on Orpheum Avenue. He pointed out that ordinarily there would be a retail presence on the ground floor that would have large glass windows, but Zions Securities Corporation is requesting that no retail be required for the Orpheum Avenue street frontage. Mr. Ashdown asked about the possibility of the Planning Commission granting that request. Ms. Giraud said that she believed the Planning Staff is recommending this to move forward.
Update on the Juel Apartment building appeal.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission's decision to accept the findings of the Economic Review Panel, which denied the request for economic hardship for the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East by Overland Development Corporation, was appealed to the Land Use Appeals Board. She added that the case was remanded back to the Commission and will appear on the May 15, 2002 agenda and it would have to go back to the Economic Review Panel, according to Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney. Ms. Giraud said that the Land Use Appeals Board believed that Mr. Holman should have had an appraisal of the Juel in its current or renovated condition. She said that the whole case hinged on the fact that Mr. Holman still used the inflated value of the property, even after carving off part of the land that would not be needed to operate the Juel Apartment building. Ms. Giraud indicated that Mr. Holman still considered the cost of the property on a per square footage basis; the same as what he had paid for the total parcels on the block. She said that Mr. Holman has hired an appraiser and the City plans to hire an appraiser to determine a plot of land that would be needed to operate the Juel, so both appraisers would be looking at the same piece of land. Ms. Giraud reminded the Commissioners that Doug Stephens was the City's representative and Mr. Burke Cartwright was the neutral party.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Simonsen asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young moved to adjourn the meeting. No second was required. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:15P.M.