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 Pete Ashdown, Warren Lloyd, Paula Carl, Noreen Heid, Jackie Gasparik, Janice Lew and Joel Paterson.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Vicki Mickelsen, Chair; Pete
Ashdown, Vice Chair; Paula Carl, Noreen Heid, and Warren Lloyd.
Present from the Planning Staff were; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Janice Lew, Principal Planner; Jackie Gasparik, Principal Planner; and Louise Harris, Senior Secretary.
The meeting was called to order by Vicki Mickelsen, Chair at 4:07p.m. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item on the agenda would be followed in the order as written. At this time Ms. Mickelsen asked if anyone wanted to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda.
Kirk Huffaker, Utah Heritage Foundation, came forward to speak on the Compatible Infill Development Ordinance that is being considered by the City. He wanted the Commissioners to support this Ordinance. This Ordinance will be presented to the Planning Commission on November 9, 2005, and will be presented to the City Council on December 6, 2005. Monster houses are a big item now throughout the City. Many historical houses are being replaced and creating un-neighborly situations in many historic neighborhoods throughout the City because of the size, scale and design of these new houses. New zoning ordinances are important now and Joel Paterson is working with City wide ordinances that will be considered in December. New zoning standards are being looked at as the answer to protect historic neighborhoods. A tiered system is being designed and provides some restrictions but provides some flexibility at the same time. It is being presented as a positive proposal and he invited the Commission to get a copy of the proposal and consider supporting it personally and if possible, as a Commission. This is not being presented officially as part of the process, but it would help to know it is being supported as it is historic neighborhoods that are being affected.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the Commission had any questions for Mr. Huffaker. Mr. Lloyd asked about any dates that are coming up that the Commission should be aware of.
Mr. Paterson indicated that November 9th, the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing and on December 6th, the City Council will hold a public hearing. The Planning Commission recommendations can be brought back to the HLC in December. Ms. Mickelsen asked if they were having an open house. Mr. Paterson indicated that they had one on October 25th. Ms. Mickelsen asked Mr. Huffaker to talk about his program Additions are their solution to the monster houses instead of tearing down the small historic house. They will also bring some other ideas that will help neighborhoods be more active in planning issues or being good neighbors in terms of house's or compatible additions. There will be a lunch time speaker Jim Lindberg from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, who co-authored a book called “Taming the Tear Down Trend”. The workshop will be at the Memorial House on Saturday November 12th, at 9:00 am. The cost will be $8.00 for UHF members and $10.00 for non members and includes lunch. Mr. Lloyd asked where people can obtain a copy of the ordinance. Mr. Paterson indicated it is on the Planning Division's Web Page or people could call him.
Report of Planning Director
Ms. Coffey indicated that there was none, but would like to discuss the Awards
Ceremony under other business after the public hearings.
Approval of Minutes
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any additions or corrections to the October 5, 2005 minutes. A correction was presented but there were not enough members present to vote as three members in attendance tonight did not attend the October 5, 2005, HLC Meeting and would abstain. Therefore, approval of the minutes was tabled until next month.
Public Hearings
Case No. 023-05 the applicant was not present. Therefore, the Commission moved to the second item on the agenda.
Case No. 001-04, at 1253 East 100 South. by Susan Mickelsen of Lupine Enterprises. Inc. requesting legalization of work that is different than the Historic Landmark Commission approved plans. The property is located in the University Historic District.
Ms. Lew presented the findings of fact and staff's recommendation. Staff finds that the legalization request for 1253 East 100 South does not comply with the City's historic preservation standards as stated and is inconsistent with the architectural character and historic integrity of the building. Staff also views that an approval of the legalization request would set a negative precedent for the University Historic District that could be very detrimental to Salt Lake City's historic districts as a whole. Therefore, staff recommends the following:
• That the HLC deny the request to legalize the front porch element, as the new balustrade does not convey the same visual appearance of an historic building material or match the architectural style of the house. Should the applicant remove the balustrade or present a design that is more compatible with the historic character of the building, staff requests that the HLC direct staff to administratively approve the plans.
• That the HLC deny the request to legalize the window treatment, as the configuration of the existing windows is inconsistent with the historic character of the building. Should the applicant present windows that are more in keeping with the appearance of historic windows in dimension, profile and finish, staff requests that the HLC direct staff to approve the windows administratively. Additionally, staff recommends that the shutters be
removed
• That a final site plan including grading and all site features shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director or designee.
• That the HLC legalize the existing fiber cement siding material, as it has been used for new construction on secondary elevations and not to replace historic fabric.
A copy of the Staff Report is filed with these minutes.
Mr. Ashdown asked if the problem with using wrought iron was that the applicant didn't approach staff and explain why they were going from wood to wrought iron.
Ms. Lew indicated that it isn't what was originally presented to the Architectural Subcommittee which was a wood material and the wrought iron is not consistent with the home.
Mr. Ashdown asked if the rail was not appropriate in terms of the style or design. Ms. Lew said that the rail design is not identified as appropriate in the guidelines.
The Staff report listed the following standards:
Design Standards for Architectural Details:
6.2 If replacement is necessary, design the new element using accurate information about original features.
6.3 Develop a new design for the replacement feature that is a simplified interpretation when the original element is missing and cannot be documented.
Ms. Lew indicated that they do have a photo of the restoration of most of the primary structure but they don't know what the original porch looked like.
Mr. Ashdown also asked whether the grading issue was an HLC issue or a Planning issue.
Ms. Lew said that grading is reviewed to be sure there aren't changes over two feet which requires special approval. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required before a building permit can be issued. A site plan was submitted for the garage, a permit and Certificate of Appropriateness were issued. The excessive grade change was observed on a later site visit.
Mr. Lloyd asked about the Certificate of Appropriateness issued for the front porch hand rail that said “front porch railing height should be lower and consistent with other historic structures in the district”. Mr. Lloyd assumed that this comment referred to the proposed wood railing and that the railing should be 30” in height.
Ms. Lew indicated that the staff was not looking at the proposed porch as a replication of that particular porch. But that is what the Landmarks did review. But in this case, she did not feel that porch is high enough to require a rail under the Building Code.
Ms. Mickelsen asked about which windows were in question.
Ms. Lew indicated that on the east elevation in the middle of the addition, the double hung windows have been changed to the three smaller windows.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were no further questions from the Commission, the applicants were invited to come forward and give their name and address.
Ms. Susan Mickelsen, General Contractor of Lupin Enterprises, Inc., 4644 South Hunters Rich Circle, Salt Lake City, came forward and gave a history of the house. It was originally built in 1871 by Elias Price, a Civil War Veteran. The original house was a two room “salt box”. She has put $500,000 into restoring this home. The front porch railing was put on only to enhance the home, it was not needed. She also changed the windows and made the grade change. The grade change was required to match the grade of the neighbor's driveway as a result a retaining wall had to be built. Ms. Mickelsen was not aware these changes needed to go before the HLC.
Mr. Ashdown asked if this was her first time before the Historic Landmarks Commission. Ms. Susan Mickelsen indicated that this wasn't her first time. Mr. Ashdown indicated that she doesn't need to replicate the original design but she does need to build the design approved.
Ms. Mickelsen indicated she did on the old structure but she just didn't think these changes needed approval because they looked so much better.
Mr. Ashdown asked about the wrought iron railing. He inquired whether it was more expensive than wood.
Ms. Michelsen said most definitely. This railing is a hand crafted, hand forged, hand designed $1,500 railing. The wrought iron railing, the fence and the gazebo were installed to give the impression that the house cost more money.
Ms. Vicki Mickelsen asked if there were any other public comments.
David Ballard of 1245 East 100 South indicated that he was concerned about the west side of the home not having rain gutters. This 1300 sq. ft. home is now 4600 sq. ft. and he was asking about the rain water that will run off the house or icicles that will form. The west side of the home houses the heating and air conditioner exhaust and they blow heat close to his back door. The dryer vent is also there.
Ms. Vicki Mickelsen indicated that these are not code items and the Commission felt there was nothing that could be done to change them unless a fence was built around them.
Ms. Susan Mickelsen indicated the rain gutters were not installed because they are on the west side of the house and will not get very much sun and rain gutters would freeze. Mr. Ballard has a 30 foot easement where he could park a car. She further indicated that the fence is 42 inches from his property line. No building permit or Certificate of Appropriateness was issued for the fence. However, Ms. Mickelsen said the building inspector knew about the fence.
Ms. Coffey talked about the fact that it is not the Planning Division's responsibility to make sure building permits are issued according to the plans. It is the building inspector's duty.
A discussion followed regarding the work which deviated from the approved plans i.e., the porch railing and fence, windows and grading.
Ms. Coffey explained that exterior construction in the Historic Districts or on Landmark Sites has to be reviewed and approved in accordance with the regulations of the Preservation Ordinance and the Design Guidelines. The only thing that is not regulated is painting. She then indicated that the Historic Landmarks Commission needs to determine whether or not the changes that were made to the approved plans are appropriate.
Mr. David VanDyke, Contractor, of 430 South Douglas, indicated that even if the inspector did not catch the violations, the contractor or property owner is still liable. The inspectors will help you but the contractor is still responsible to know the building codes.
Sally Domashell, realtor for the project indicated that the items on the house that Staff recommend removal of are selling points and gave the home “curb appeal”. She felt that because this home is so much smaller than the homes around it, the house needed to be improved to give it the appeal for selling/buying.
Ms. Vicki Mickelsen asked if there were any others that wanted to speak. Hearing none, she then closed the public hearing and went into the Executive Session.
Mr. Lloyd talked about the modifications to the plans that were submitted. He noted that the approved plans showed trim around the new windows which are a standard historic treatment. However, the windows were installed without the trim. The 'front railing was a nice feature to the house but wood or something solid would give more of a physical presence to the porch.
Ms. Heid asked Ms. Lew to explain whether the porch, was supposed to come further south and across the front of the house.
Ms. Lew indicated that that was the change the Architectural Subcommittee made. The Subcommittee looked at the use of wood and making the porch smaller.
Ms. Vicki Mickelsen closed Executive Session and reopened Public Hearings so Ms. Susan Mickelsen could make another statement.
Ms. Susan Mickelsen indicated the pillars were copied from the pillars that were on the house prior to this renovation.
Ms. Vicki Mickelsen then closed the public hearings and reopened the Executive
Session.
The shutters are not a true shutter, there is just a detail added and they have no function. It is a decorative element and is not irreversible and inappropriate.
Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved that in Case Number 001-04 at 1253 East 100 South:
1. That the Historic Landmarks Committee deny the request to legalize the front porch element specifically the balustrade and follow the Staff recommendation to remove the balustrade and work with Staff to find a design that is compatible to the building.
2. That approval of window placement and shutters is to be approved pending plans to put in appropriate trim for the historic character of the house and subject to Staff approval.
3. Final site plans for grading and all site features be submitted and approved by the Planning Director or designee. Legalize the existing fiber cement and siding materials as it has been used for new construction and secondary elevations in the past.
Mr. Lloyd seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Lloyd, all voted “Aye”. Ms. Heid abstained. The motion passed. Ms. Mickelsen indicated the procedure for appeal was on the back of the agenda.
Case No. 027-05 at 446 South Douglas Street by Barry Rasmussen and Mark Hammond, requesting to construct a new garage with access to the abutting alley. This property is located in the University Historic District.
Ms. Gasparik, presented the findings of fact and staff recommendation. This property consists of a one and one half-story brick bungalow home with a chipped gable, and a cross gable over the porch. This home was constructed in approximately 1922. The proposed accessory structure is a 720 square foot two-car, detached garage accessible from a back alley. The gabled, asphalt shingled (oxford gray) roof rises to 23% feet at the peak, 17 feet to the mid-point of the gable. The 18' X 8' garage door will have panels with a true divided-light panel on the top section of the door. All other windows and doors have been salvaged from demolition projects of homes of the same period as this home. Based on the above analysis, the Planning Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the request for a new accessory structure with the following conditions:
1. Review of the final details of the design of the proposed project including any concerns or suggestions expressed by the Commission, shall be delegated to Planning Staff.
2. The approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements.
A copy of the Staff Report is filed with these minutes
Ms. Mickelsen asked what the height of the garage was compared to the home. Ms. Gasparik was not sure and suggested she ask the applicant. The garage is a 1 % story.
Ms. Mickelsen asked the applicants to come forward. Barry Rasmussen and Mark Hammond live in the house and mentioned that the height of the home is approximately 30 feet high. The garage is 1 % stories. Their proposal is to match the pitch of the roof, the clip of the eve and they will try to match the character of the period of the home. They want to match the roof line to make it look as close as possible to being an original to the home and property even though it is not. The garage door will face the alley and the loft area will definitely be used for storage only.
Mr. Lloyd asked if the width of the alley allows for the turning radius.
Mark Hammond indicated that they have two large vehicles and the alley is 15 feet wide. They have talked with Barry Walsh of the Transportation Division. He indicated they have to allow a seven foot turning radius which is why they elected to have a single door vs a double. It will allow them to have a 22 foot turning radius when coming in from the alley. It will be used as a garage only with the storage upstairs. The big consideration with the roof line is to match the roofline of the existing structure and make it compatible to the existing structure. He also indicated that the door is a true wood insulated door, and because of the weight it must have a minimum of 15” above the 8 foot door for the door to open and close properly. He passed around a brochure of the actual door that will be used as the one on the plans is not correct.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were further questions, if not she will close the public hearings and open the Executive Session and entertain a motion.
Mr. Lloyd indicated that this is a well designed structure providing off street parking accessed from the alley and it also has a benefit because of the topography of lowering the garage height relative to the house.
Motion:
Ms. Carl moved that in Case 027-05 that the Commission approve the staff recommendations and approve the plans as shown with the review of final details to be delegated to the Planning Staff and noting that the project must meet all other applicable City requirements and also the garage door to be installed as is per the brochure and not the drawing. Ms. Heid seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Lloyd and Ms. Heid all voted “Aye”. No one was opposed. The motion
passed.
Case No. 023-05 at 72-74 West Girard Avenue by Kenneth E. Wheadon, requesting to modify the front approach stairway, add a glass enclosure to the front entry and construct a two-story addition to the rear of the building. This property is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Ms. Lew presented the case the findings of fact and staff's recommendations. According to the building permit file, this residence was built in 1950 by a Ralph W. Carr. The split-level brick and asbestos sided structure was constructed as a duplex with a symmetrical facade and centrally placed front entrance containing separate unit entries. The front porch entry was replaced with a wooden handrail and steps in 1998. In 2003, the original alun1inum windows were replaced with vinyl. The “50-year threshold” has now passed and the structure can now be considered of architectural importance as an example of post World War II era housing.
The applicant is proposing a reconfiguration of the front entrance that maintains the original orientation of the entry progression. The submitted plans show the upper entry landing projecting three feet from the face of the building with the run of the stairs designed to accommodate the projection and a lower landing. He also proposes to place a rear addition to the building. The rake of the existing upper level shed roof dormer element will be maintained but two new dormers will be added to expand the living space.
The applicant also proposes to replace a rear addition to the building.
Based upon the comments, analysis and findings of fact, Planning Staff recommends the Historic Landmark Commission approve the application requesting approval to modify an existing front entry and replace a rear addition to the existing structure with the following conditions:
1. Approval of the final details of the design of the proposed project shall be delegated to the Planning Staff based upon direction given during the hearing from the Historic Landmark Commission.
2. This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable
City requirements.
A copy of the Staff Report is filed with these minutes.
With no further questions for Staff, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward. Ken Wheaton of Wheaton Architects along with Mike and Susan Sanchez the owners,
came forward. The construction is to create a more usable space; the addition off the back will make the upstairs more useable and create separate laundry rooms. This being a triplex, the basement unit does have a front entrance and to extend the front out will allow them to use the front door as now there is no way to open the front door unless it is setback into the unit. The replaced stairs block it from opening and the side door must be used to enter. They would like to create a breezeway between the two upper units and in order to do that a three foot landing is needed. All that is needed is to raise the stairs a few risers to get the three feet out. The evaporative cooler is outdated. They have radiant heating, and the solar panels are to supplement the heat to mitigate the cost of heating the units. The solar tubes also add day light and the new ones will have n1inimal day light.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the basement was being expanded.
Mr. Wheaton indicated no it will stay the same. The laundry facilities are in the basement now. The people in the upper units have to go out and down to get to it. That is why they want to put laundry facility in each unit.
Mr. Lloyd asked about the mechanical equipment location. The location of the evaporative units is more limited than if it were a condensing unit that could be located anywhere.
Mr. Wheaton replied that because of the limited space, it almost has to be in the back yard or on the roof. They are evaporative coolers and with the slope of the roof, the only people that can see them would be the neighbors in the back.
Mr. Lloyd asked about the exterior building material.
Mr. Wheaton indicated that the owner has salvaged as many asbestos shingles as possible from a demolition of a home in Nevada. They will replace any that are broken with the new ones. They found another product to use on the addition in the back and it will match the old product. It might be a different color, tan or tope, but it will match the house. He indicated they contacted the EPA and they did not have a problem with using the shingles as long as the integrity of the shingles is kept.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any more questions. If not, she will close the public hearings and open the Executive Session.
Motion:
Mr. Lloyd moved that in Case Number 023-05 that approval be granted for the application to modify the front entry and replace the rear addition to the existing structure subject to the conditions proposed by staff:
1. Approval of the final details of the design of the proposed project shall
be delegated to the Planning Staff based upon the direction given during the hearing from the Historic Landmark Commission.
2. This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements.
Ms. Heid seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Lloyd, Ms. Carl and Ms. Heid all voted “Aye”. No one was opposed. The motion passed.
Other Business
Ms. Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, talked about the Awards Ceremony. The Planning Staff would like it to be more formal and come up with categories for the awards. The criteria would be a formal type of nominating process where citizens could nominate structures and a subcommittee of Historic Landmarks Commissioners would review the nominations and make a decision. Staff proposes to have the Awards Ceremony in May which is Preservation Month. Ms. Coffey is asking for volunteers who would like to help participate with the subcommittee.
Ms. Mickelsen asked what type of time frame they looking at.
Ms. Coffey indicated that Staff could come up with items for the subcommittee. So, it probably would be only a few meetings once the preliminary work is done.
Ms. Mickelsen indicated that she would be able to help.
Ms. Coffey talked about getting the information out to the public. They will make the decision on the different categories and with the Planning Division's list serve of interested people, they will get the word out. They will bring the information back in December and ask for more volunteers.
Mr. Lloyd indicated he was willing to help.
Ms. Mickelsen moved to the discussion of the new proposed Compatible Residential infill Development Ordinance.
Mr. Lloyd asked about the City Wide Zoning Process. He felt that it would create more review cases for all City boards.
Mr. Paterson said that the way the proposal is now there will be a base standard for building heights. There will be a multiple step process if you wanted approval for taller buildings than the base standard. There will be an Administrative Public Hearing process and if appealed, move to the Board of Adjustment. For the Landmarks Commission, the Historic Preservation Overlay District Standards will prevail over the base heights standards. The City Council is very confident in the landmark process and will allow the Landmarks Commission process to continue as it is. The standards will need to be reviewed as far as staff review and through that process it will not affect how the Landmarks reviews new construction. Final plans have not yet been made and as the design process on this ordinance is still taking place, they will get information to each Commissioner.
Mr. Lloyd indicated that momentum is critical and he thinks it would be helpful for them to participate.
Ms. Mickelsen asked about whether a letter of support from the Commission is within their charter and whether it would be useful.
Ms. Coffey indicated that it definitely was within the HLC Charter but it was up to each of the Commissioners if they want to do it.
Ms. Mickelsen brought up the letter for RDA. She has not done anything yet and apologized. She will be sending an e-mail to the Commissioners and soliciting their input. She asked for Cheri's input on how this came about.
Ms. Coffey replied that the Planning Staff asked for suggestions for the HLC representative on an Economic Review Panel for an RDA project. A question was asked as to whether the RDA has the right to go through the Economic Hardship process and the City Attorney said “yes” they do because they are property owners. This brought up other issues about h the RDA relating to Historic Preservation. The Commission decided a letter would be submitted with the subject that would be discussed and then a time frame would be set up to meet with the RDA Board. An Economic Hardship Panel has been formed and they are trying to set up a time to meet. Rob Fetzer will be the HLC representative. The RDA has appointed Valda Tarbet and the third person is Nathan Anderson, a contractor.
Ms. Mickelsen congratulated Mr. Ashdown on the birth of his new baby daughter.
As there was no other business to be brought before the Commission, she asked for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Heid so moved. The meeting adjourned at 6:20P.M.