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 Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Mark Wilson, Robert Young, Joel Paterson, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Wayne Gordon, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, and Soren Simonsen were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Young. Mr. Young 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, Mr. Young 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 November 3, 1999 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mark Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Payne and Mr. Simonsen were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 021-99 at 539 East 900 South by Nadan L. Hosea. requesting to construct a single-family dwelling.
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 of this meeting. She said that the applicant must obtain a variance for the side yard setbacks. Ms. Giraud indicated that Merrill Nelson, Board of Adjustment administrator, said that he did not believe there would be a problem with the applicant being granted a variance. After being asked, Mr. Giraud said that she did not address the proposed 5/12 roof pitch because staff recommended that the design of the roof be changed.
Ms. Giraud stated that staff recommended that the application be tabled and referred to the Architectural Subcommittee for further review. The staff finds that while a detached home is appropriate for this lot, and is visually in keeping with the surrounding properties and streetscape in terms of scale, spacing, and directional expression, several elements of the design are not in keeping with the other standards listed in the ordinance and need revision. Specifically, staff urges the applicant to consider the following changes: 1) using a hip roof, as opposed to a gable roof, with wide eaves; 2) lowering the house, so that it does not look like a split-level house and so that the foundation wall is not so prominent; 3) construction of a covered porch that extends the width of the house, to create a transitional space between the yard and the interior; 4) enlarging the window on the west half of the street elevation; and 5) using double-hung windows, casements, or fixed windows instead of sliders.
There was some questions asked by a few Commission members and Ms. Giraud suggested that the applicant was able to answer the questions better than she could.
Mr. and Mrs. Nadan Hosea, the applicants, were present. Mr. Hosea stated that the original house on the subject lot had no front porch and the entry way was on the side. He said that the original house collapsed from the snow in 1993. He said that his family owns the two homes to the west of the subject lot and is looking forward to having the new house.
Mr. Hosea responded to the recommended changes in the roof. He said that he did not want to put a steep roof on the house because of the danger of having to do any
repairs in the future. Ms. Giraud said that the roof did not need to be steep, but it needed to be a roof form that is appropriate for the district. She suggested that it be hipped with a front-facing gable.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Parvaz led the discussion by asking if the proposal was going to be constructed as a two-family building. Mr. Hosea said that the proposal was going to be a single family dwelling. He said that the lot is only thirty-five feet wide. Mr. Hosea said that he has a fairly large family and did not want to take up space for an inside stairway leading to the basement. Mr. Parvaz said that he had many questions regarding the drawings. Mr. Hosea said that the proposed main level of the house would have both a front and back entrance, but he believed the only entrance into the basement would be from the back yard. There was some confusion regarding this issue. Ms. Giraud asked, as she pointed to the drawings, "Do you have to go outside to get to the basement?" The applicant responded in the affirmative.
• Mr. Owen said that the two floors of the proposed house do not seem to be interconnected in any way. Mr. Hosea said that there would not be a separate apartment in the basement, but "it looks that way because the way the plans have been drawn". He added that he wanted to be able to finish the upstairs and the downstairs levels in order to obtain a loan. He said that many of the older homes in the area do not have a finished basement. Mr. Hosea also said that the value of the home would increase if it had a finished basement. Mr. Owen pointed out that on the 1,201 square foot living area drawing, there are no doorways shown, either for entrance or exit for that unit.
• Ms. Rowland inquired if zoning allowed a duplex to be constructed on the lot. Ms. Giraud said that a duplex would be allowed. Ms. Rowland added, "The proposal appeared to be a duplex building and whether the applicants use it as a single family home, would be their issue, but for planning purposes it appears to be a duplex because a person could rent each unit separately."
At the conclusion of the discussion, more Commission members pointed out that the drawings needed to be corrected and modified to show more details because there was more information that was needed before the next review.
Mr. Young 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:
• Several architectural students from the University of Utah attended the meeting and three students were unified in expressing their opinion that the architectural format needed to be re-evaluated and they concurred with the staff’s recommendations.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Young closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
The discussion continued regarding the need for a description of materials, more detail on the stairway, and the egress and access issue. There was a consensus of opinion that the drawings, in general, needed to be brought to a higher level of accuracy.
Mr. Littig moved that Case No.021-99 be tabled and be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee to review modified drawings, which addresses the recommendations made by staff, as outlined in the staff report, such as the roof, the height of the house, the front porch, the type of windows, and the size of the window on the west side of the street elevation. The applicant is to return to the full Commission for final approval.
The discussion continued. There was some suggestion about adding the access issue to the motion. Mr. Littig said that he believed that access was a zoning issue and not a design issue. There was also a suggestion regarding exterior material other than stucco. Mr. Young said that the term "stucco" was important and the type of finish. He said that the term "stucco" was used and not "a Dryvit system".
Ms. Giraud interjected by saying that the role of the Architectural Subcommittee was to be of assistance to the applicant, so the drawings might not be at the level the Commission members were requesting before the meeting. She said that she hoped that the architects on the subcommittee would provide some of that assistance.
Final motion:
Mr. Littig moved that Case No. 021-99 be tabled and be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee to review modified drawings, which addresses the recommendations made by staff, as outlined in the staff report, such as the roof, the height of the house, the front porch, the type of windows, and the size of the window on the west side of the street elevation. The applicant is to return to the full Commission for final approval. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mark Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Young, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Simonsen were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
The members of the Architectural Subcommittee discussed holding their regularly scheduled meeting on November 24, 1999, which would be the afternoon before the Thanksgiving holiday. It appeared that enough members could make that meeting; therefore, the next Architectural Subcommittee meeting would be on that day, rather than December 8, 1999, which was shown on the agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS
Progress of the changes in the Economic Hardship section of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Giraud reported that she presented Petition No. 400-99-50 by the Historic Landmark Commission to amend Section 21A.34.020K of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance regarding economic hardship and the demolition of landmark or contributing structures in local historic districts on October 21, 1999. She indicated that all the recommendations made by the members of the Historic Landmark Commission were included. She said that the Planning Commission tabled the issue for further discussion. Ms. Giraud added that the Planning Commission wanted the Historic Landmark Commission to look at some other revisions. She carefully pointed out that the Planning Commission was very supportive of the Historic Landmark Commission's intent in revising the ordinance and of preservation issues.
Mr. Owen inquired if the revisions included separating the economic hardship issues of demolition and conditional use. Ms. Giraud said that they did not. She added that conditional uses were going to be reviewed further, so at this time, the modifications only included demolition as it pertains to the economic hardship ordinance.
• Land Use Appeals case.
Ms. Giraud stated that the applicants, Kelly Lamoreaux and Shawn Eva, appealed the Historic Landmark Commission's decision to the City's Land Use Appeal's Board to not accept the findings and approval of an economic hardship by the Economic Review Panel when the applicants went through the economic hardship process. She said that the applicants were requesting a conditional use to turn the building at 720 E. Ashton Avenue into a bed and breakfast. Ms. Giraud said that the Land Use Appeal's Board remanded the case back to the Economic Review Panel because the Board members believed there were too many unanswered questions. She said that she has been working with the applicants to make certain that they have all the needed information and that the information is adequate.
There was some discussion regarding the handling of the case by the Land Use Appeal's Board by the Historic Landmark Commission members who attended the meeting. Mr. Owen, who attended the meeting, said that he believed that the Land Use Appeal's Board addressed issues that they had no purview over.
Mr. Young, another member who attended, commented that one of the issues the Land Use Appeal's Board had was that neither the Economic Review Panel nor the Historic Landmark Commission did not make adequate findings, so he suggested that, in the future, when a Commission members make a motion, it needs to be based on findings of fact.
Mr. Young also said that the Land Use Appeal's Board did not believe the Historic Landmark Commission member, who made the final motion, was in attendance the entire time the case was being reviewed.
Awards Ceremony.
Mr. Knight said that the Citizens' Awards will be presented by the Historic Landmark Commission at the meeting on January 19, 2000. He added that former members of the Commission would also be recognized.
DISCUSSION
Presentation by Don Hartley and Charles Shepherd of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding appropriate materials in historic districts.
Ms. Giraud introduced Don Hartley and Charles Shepherd of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). She said they were invited to discuss appropriate materials in historic districts.
Mr. Hartley and Mr. Shepherd passed out copies of a package of information regarding what was new in siding, roof shingles, doors, bricks, balusters, windows, and other such elements, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. These issues were discussed by Mr. Hartley and Mr. Shepherd during the slide presentation showing the worst and best scenarios of new materials. They also encouraged questions and comments from staff and the members of the Commission. Each one talked about new materials that SHPO had approved for applicants who had applied for federal and state tax credits. Both gentlemen agreed that at times SHPO was more strict than the Historic Landmark Commission.
Both gentlemen referred to The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation which SHPO uses on which to base their decisions, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
The discussion concluded by both Mr. Hartley and Mr. Shepherd saying that it was better if elements were repaired, rather than being replaced by new material.
Ms. Giraud suggested that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission review and possibly revise the Policy Document by the Salt Lake City Historical Landmark Committee, a copy of which was filed with the minutes, because there are many new products available that were not available in 1984 when the policy was adopted.
It was suggested that occasional luncheon meetings be held in the future so the Historic Landmark Commission can communicate with manufacturers or representatives of some of the new products.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Young asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Payne so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:50P.M.