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, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen. Noreen Heid was excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, and Janice Lew, Associate Planner. Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, was excused.
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 off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance 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. Littig moved to approve the minutes from the October 2, 2002 meeting, as amended. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Ms. Mickelsen abstained. Ms. Heid and Ms. Rowland 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. 031-02, at 98 W. Apricot Avenue, by Elizabeth Gilbert, requesting approval for construction of a new single-family dwelling on an existing vacant lot in the Capitol Hill Historic District.
Mr. Knight 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. He stated that Elizabeth Gilbert is requesting approval to build a new house on a corner lot at the intersection of Apricot Avenue and Center Street. Mr. Knight noted a correction in the staff report. He said the proposed house would be approximately 2,600 square feet, rather than 4,503, as stated in the staff report. He indicated that the lot is zoned SR-1, Special Development Pattern Residential District, the purpose of which is to "maintain the unique character of older predominantly /ow-density neighborhoods that display a variety of yards, lot sizes, and bulk characteristics," as stated in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance Section 21A.24.080(A).
Mr. Knight gave the following background information: This lot is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Apricot Avenue and Wall Street. Sanborn Maps and tax records indicate that a 1-1/2 story, brick and wood dwelling once stood on this corner. The house had a wraparound porch, and was accessed by the existing stairs at the corner of the lot. Neighborhood residents think that the house was demolished about 1960. There are two separate parcels on this vacant lot. One is to the north of the subject property.
Mr. Knight stated that the applicant is proposing a similar footprint to the demolished house, with a wraparound porch accessed by existing steps and a new sidewalk at the corner of the lot. He said that the proposed design would be 2-1/2 stories in height, however, the height of the building was not shown on the elevations supplied by the applicant. The elevation drawings show a height of approximately 29 feet to the midpoint of the roof. Mr. Knight reported that the lot slopes to the west, so a portion of the basement would be exposed on the west side. He said that the proposed materials would be synthetic stucco walls, a concrete foundation, and architectural grade asphalt shingle roofing. The proposed landscaping plan was included in the staff report. Mr. Knight mentioned that existing landscape elements, such as the retaining walls and the steps around the south and west sides of the lot and the east side rock retaining wall will remain. There is a steep landscaped park strip along Center Street that would be planted with lawn.
Mr. Knight said that the project would conform to the base yard and bulk requirements of the SR-1 zone, which includes the following: 1) Minimum lot area for a single-family house is 5,000 square feet. This lot is approximately 4,000 square feet. Minimum lot width is 50 feet. This lot is 56 feet. Since this lot was created before the current zoning was in place, construction is allowed, even if the lot does not comply with the existing ordinance; 2) Maximum building height in a SR-1 district is 30 feet, or 2-1/2 stories, whichever is less. Although the submitted drawings are not to scale it does not appear the height of the house will exceed 30 feet; and 3) Setback requirements in an SR-1 zone are 4 feet and 10 feet and the proposed building would have 10 feet on the south side and 4 feet on the north side.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning ordinance.
H Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with
the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The surrounding buildings are shown on the photos attached to the staff report. Nearby buildings are mixes of heights. Generally, the houses on the west side of the Center Street are one story and 1-1/2 story structures. The buildings on the east side of the street are taller, due in part to the steep slope of Capitol Hill in this area. Brick, stucco, and wood are the most common materials on the surrounding buildings, with hipped or gabled roofs. The proposed house would be 2-1/2 stories tall, but similar in height to other buildings on this side of the street. Buildings on the west side are generally much lower. The 6:12 roof pitch is the minimum roof pitch suggested in the City's design guidelines, but a steeper roof pitch on this building would exceed the maximum height limit. The hipped roof form is similar to nearby buildings and others in the district. The proposed building is approximately 2,600 square feet, on three levels, and would be 31 feet wide on the Center Street side, and 42 feet4 inches deep along Apricot Avenue.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of so/ids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
Staffs discussion: The proportion of openings and ratio of solids to voids on the south and west sides of the building are regular, and are in keeping with those seen on this street. There are far fewer windows proposed for the east and north sides of the building. Although these are secondary facades, they will be visible from the street due to the deep setback of the house to the east and the vacant lot to the north.
A raised wraparound porch is proposed for the southwest corner of the house, in the same location as the house that once stood on the lot. Further details on the proposed columns, railing, and cornice should be supplied. The open gable on the front porch is not often found on historic buildings.
Stucco is a common building material in the Capitol Hill Historic District, although the historic stucco generally has more texture and relief than the EIFS systems (Exterior Insulated and Finish System) used today. The Historic Landmark Commission has, however, approved the use of stucco systems on new houses in the district. The color of the stucco is considered in this application, since the pigment is an integral part of the material, instead of an applied coating. The proposed color is not noted on the drawings. The use of stucco for details such as that proposed around the windows and doors has not been approved in previous cases. Vinyl windows and doors are proposed. The window type is not shown on the drawings, but staff presumes that they would be single-hung or casement windows. The muntin pattern shown on the drawings is not commonly seen on historic buildings. The Commission has allowed the use of vinyl windows on new construction, but generally has required the windows to be set into the wall, in order to avoid a monolithic appearance.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects
shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually
compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape- Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
Staffs discussion: The setbacks along Center Street and Apricot Avenue are similar to others on the block, although the adjacent house to the east is set back further off Apricot Avenue. The house is sited on its lot in a similar location and orientation as other structures along the block.
A double width garage door is proposed for the south side of the house. The garage would be within the main mass of the house, and the door is not set back from the front plane of the house. It would be covered by an extension of the porch roof. The applicants have stated that they need an attached garage in that location due to the size and topography of the lot.
The applicant proposes to keep historic landscape elements such as the front yard retaining wall and corner steps, and the rock retaining wall on the east side of the lot. The proposed double width driveway is wider than has typically been approved in this neighborhood.
3. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staff's discussion: There are no subdivision issues in this case. This standard is not applicable.
(Ms. Rowland arrived at the meeting at 4:11 P.M.)
Mr. Knight offered the following: "Because this is the first time the Historic Landmark Commission has reviewed this application, Staff is making no recommendation on the proposal at this time. As per usual procedure in new construction cases, the Commission may wish to assess the proposed design and then refer the case to the Architectural Subcommittee for further refinement of details. Staff suggests that the applicant supply further details on the following items:
1. The porch and balcony columns, stairs, and railings;
2. Window and door types and a window section, including a detail showing how the window would be mounted in the wall;
3. The window and door trim, soffit and fascia; and
4. Any other items raised by the Commission during its discussion. The proposal could then return to the full Historic Landmark Commission for final review. Alternately, if there are still substantial issues to be resolved before the details of the design are worked out at the subcommittee level, the Commission may wish to request changes to the design and continue or table the case until a later meeting."
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Littig clarified that the wall on the west side of the property would remain. Mr. Knight said that the wall would remain on that side, but it would probably have to be rebuilt on the south side.
Ms. Rowland asked for recent examples of houses in the district where synthetic stucco was used as the exterior material. Nelson said that there were two buildings on West Capitol Boulevard the Commission had approved within the past few years.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Both Ms. Elizabeth Gilbert, the applicant and her representative, Mr. Alex Gilbert, were present. He stated that his daughter, Elizabeth, is going to be living in the area. He said, "We are enthused about the safety and the flavor of the area, as it is being that it is in an historic district." Mr. Gilbert said that she had purchased the lot and designing a home that would fit on the lot has been a real challenge because the lot is 4,530 square feet. He pointed out that the home, with all three floors, would have less than 2,600 square feet. Mr. Gilbert stated they tried to get three bedrooms in the house because it would increase the value of the house.
Mr. Gilbert indicated that he had not seen the staff report prior to this meeting but he wanted to respond to the points of interest included in the report. He said that they plan to use concrete on the porches. He said the decks would be concrete but wood railings or better would be used for the railings. Mr. Gilbert noted that if they can afford to put in metal they would upgrade the railings from wood. He mentioned that they would like to keep the outside maintenance to a minimum so they planned to use metal for the fascia.
Mr. Gilbert said that the windows would be recessed in the wall with a raised stucco trim around the windows and doors. He noted that the windows would have sills. He said that the windows would be double insulated vinyl windows. Mr. Gilbert added that the color for the stucco would be a sage gray.
Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by inquiring further about the windows. He wanted to know if the applicant was proposing snap grids between the vinyl windows that would show simulated divided lights, or would the grids be on the outside of the window. Mr. Gilbert said that we would not use those grids between the windows. He added that they would be on the outside of the where the mullions are indicated on the plans. Mr. Littig inquired if the windows would be double-hung or single hung. Mr. Gilbert said that they would be single hung without the plastic strip around the exterior.
• Ms. Rowland asked about the mechanism of the windows. Mr. Gilbert said they would be casement windows that slide. He said their contractor would be Marv Henricksen who owns Treasure Valley Homes and has been building houses for 35 plus years.
Mr. Gilbert said that speed is of the essence. He added that they would like to get the foundations in and dried in this winter so anything the Historic Landmark Commission can do to move this along will be appreciated.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, 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. Sandra Clark, who owns the property adjacent to the north, asked if there would be a retaining wall on the north side of the property. She expressed her concern about drainage and slippage from her property onto the neighboring lot because the level of the lot has been lowered. Mr. Simonsen said that when it rains it would drain from your property onto the subject property. Ms. Clark concurred. Mr. Ashdown asked Ms. Clark if she had any comments regarding the overall design. Ms. Clark said she thought the design was fine. Mr. Simonsen stated that a retaining wall and landscaping would prevent erosion onto the applicant's property so it does not deteriorate Ms. Clark's property.
• Ms. Polly Hart, who resides in the neighborhood one block away, stated that she had concerns about the scale of the structure. She said that the proposed home would be a 2-1/2 story home and it did not matter if the bottom story is two inches less than half of the floor's height; it is a 2-1/2 story home. Ms. Hart indicated that she had inventoried all the houses in the neighborhood including one block up on Apricot, one block down on Apricot, one block north on Center, and one block south on Center. She said that there is not a single building that is higher than two stories, which includes a 16-unit apartment building and an 8-unit condominium building; so scale is a real concern. Ms. Hart stated that the three homes that are two stories in the area have significantly larger lots. She talked about the acreage and the square footage of the lots in the neighborhood. Ms. Hart made her point regarding the scale of the proposed structure planning to be built on such a small lot. She said there is only one structure that has 4,500 square feet and that is a duplex north of the subject property. Ms. Hart continued to describe the buildings in the area and said that there are no other single-family homes that could be compared to the proposed structure and a single-family home needs to be compared to other single-family homes. Ms. Hart presented the information from her extensive research. Mr. Littig said that he understood Ms. Hart's concerns about the scale of the proposed home. He inquired how Ms. Hart would feel about the proposed structure if the roof was scaled down so the building would appear smaller. Ms. Hart said that it would help, but "we are still looking at a home that has huge square footage. It is essentially a three-story home where mostly we have two-story homes". Ms. Hart indicated that the only single-family dwellings in the neighborhood that have three floors of usable space have a basement that is fully underground with no windows raised above ground. Mr. Simonsen mentioned the row houses across Center Street. Ms. Hart said that only two stories are above ground. Mr. Simonsen pointed out that the subject lot was very challenging due to the grade change. He added that it was challenge throughout the district. Mr. Ashdown stated that if the basement was deeper, it would bring the overall height down. Ms. Hart if it would only be two stories above ground it would help significantly.
• Ms. Minta Brandon, who resides in the neighborhood, stated that the scale of the home is beautiful and "it is made for a princess". Ms. Brandon spoke of some of the huge homes that have been constructed on West Capitol Street and other areas on Capitol Hill. She said that the homes were beautiful, but they have taken away what would be considered an historic district. She added that they should have been constructed elsewhere. Ms. Brandon said that she has lived in her home for 30 years so she has seen the changes in the neighborhood. She suggested that the members of the Historic Landmark Commission need to be certain that the house would fit into the surrounding neighborhood before the Commission approves the plans for such a large house. Ms. Brandon stated that she worked hard, along with other interested supporters, to recognize Capitol Hill as an historic district and does not want large homes with vinyl elements in the neighborhood. She talked about how dilapidated the area was when they worked so hard to bring the area up to the standards. She pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission is "a board to protect the integrity on the historic district. It is not to give new rules so they can have vinyl in new homes that are being constructed. They can have vinyl doors in new ones. I own an old home and I'm not allowed vinyl windows. I am not allowed vinyl doors." She pleaded with the Commission not to "cheat the integrity and the beauty of the historic district." Ms. Brandon said that she had nothing against progress, but it was a big push to try to get the district where it is today. She said that West Capitol Street "is the finest example of being destroyed. I love the neighbors there. The Marmalade part has been destroyed." She talked more about the neighborhood and how the proposed structure needed to fit into the area. Ms. Brandon said the pioneers who settled the district did not need two or three "outhouses" so the new homes do not need all those bathrooms, either. She reminded the Commissioners that they are "pioneers" too. Ms. Brandon concluded by saying that the words "historic" and "landmark" have a great meaning for her. She thanked the Commission for her time.
• Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, stated that she was puzzled. She said that she has been to many meetings and "I have seen you be unkind to some people and I have seen you be very kind to others and I decided this afternoon that those of us who live in old houses you don't like, and that you are willing to accept almost anything with a new house." Ms. Gardner said that she is looking forward to having Ms. Gilbert live in the neighborhood because it is a lovely place in which to live. She said that the neighbors just want her house to fit in. She expressed her concerns about the scale of the proposed structure. Ms. Gardner talked about the narrow streets and no street parking. She said that the new houses are made for "great big fun parties" with no parking for the guests. Ms. Gardner stated, 'We need to accommodate the life styles of, not only the people who are moving there, but who live there now." She pointed out that she needed a copy of the Commission's "set of rules". Mr. Simonsen assured her that she would have a copy of the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City available to her in the Planning Office. Ms. Gardner expressed her appreciation to the members of the Historic Landmark Commission and what they do for the district.
• Ms. Joanne Legge, a resident in the neighborhood, stated that she wanted the Commission to work with the Gilberts to get a home built on that property. She said that she thought the Gilberts were sincere about building a home that would be nice in the neighborhood. Ms. Legge said that she was the previous owner of the lot and talked about all the problems that existed on the property, such as kids starting fires with firecrackers, having to tear down transient housing, and garbage and trash being thrown onto the lot. She added that it was a real problem in the neighborhood. Ms. Legge spoke of the other new buildings that have been constructed in the district. She said that a single-dwelling structure would be a real asset to the neighborhood. She thanked the Commission.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Mr. Simonsen asked if the Commissioners had more questions for the applicant.
• Mr. Littig had some additional questions for the applicant. He clarified that the windows would be single-hung and work up and down. He inquired about the French doors that are depicted on the plans. Mr. Gilbert said that they would be installed on the two balconies, rather than sliding glass doors.
• Mr. Christensen said that "the public comments certainly resonate with me because I live on Center Street too and I have walked past this every day on my way to work for years. I would be delighted to see a house there and it looks like we have the genesis of something really good. I am just wondering why it needs to be so humongous." Mr. Gilbert reiterated that the home would be 2,600 square feet, including the basement, and the lot is 4,500 square feet. Mr. Gilbert pointed out that there would only be 800 square feet of living space, excluding the garage. He said that there is not enough room on that lot to construct a detached garage and get any parking at all, without having cars all over the street. He added that is why more allowance for the set back on the Apricot side. Mr. Christensen asked if Mr. Gilbert had seen a copy of the photograph of the house that was originally on the site, that Ms. Hart presented to the Commission. Mr. Gilbert said that he had not. Mr. Christensen showed Mr. Gilbert the copy of the photograph. Mr. Christensen pointed out how nicely the house fit on that site. He said that it reminded him of the house on the corner of 400 North and Center Street. Mr. Christensen said that it looked like the original house was a large 2-1/2 story-house. Mr. Gilbert said on the Apricot side, there is a 20-foot fall and 70 feet of lot and the rear of the proposed
house only has one story out of the ground at that elevation. He added that the rear six-foot retaining would be almost as high as the eaves of the house. Mr. Gilbert said that he contacted the zoning people before any fees were paid to make certain that the footprint of the house was in compliance. He again said that the house would be 2-1/2 stories that would be half in the ground. Mr. Christensen asked if Mr. Gilbert would be open to some substantial revisions and consider incorporating some of the siting elements into the plans. Mr. Christensen suggested that the top floor become a half story instead of a full story. Mr. Gilbert said that he would take a copy of the house and confer with his designer.
• Mr. Rowland talked about her own house where the height of the roof had been lowered but there was still a lot of room on that top floor. She commented on the character of the original house and how it fit on the site. Ms. Rowland said that dormers on the top floor work very well. She added that the house could be moved down and be more typical of the other homes in the neighborhood. Again, Mr. Gilbert was concerned about the rear of the house. There was further discussion regarding ways to reduce the size of the proposed structure. Mr. Gilbert said that it would be put down in the ground as far as possible. He added that he was very adamant with the designer that the footprint would meet all the existing zoning ordinances.
• Mr. Ashdown asked if the applicant would consider using wood elements rather than vinyl. Mr. Gilbert said that million dollar homes use vinyl. He added that it is easy to maintain because it does not need to be painted. Mr. Ashdown said that in an historic district, it is much more common to have wood windows, where possible. Mr. Gilbert stated, "If it came down to building or not building the house, I think we would probably look at that. Home building has changed a lot. You know what has changed in home building? Better building materials. There is metal on every house they build now." Mr. Ashdown said that his friend just recently replaced all his windows on 700 North and 200 West with wood windows and they are just as functional as the vinyl. Mr. Gilbert agreed that they probably were.
Mr. Simonsen said that the Commission was getting into the detailing of the proposed structure and suggested referring this case to the Architectural Subcommittee to work out the specific elements. He said that since there were no additional questions for Mr. Gilbert, 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 he would entertain a motion at any time. He recommended including the findings in the motion and that it be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee.
Mr. Simonsen called for a point of order because the applicant left the meeting and he asked if a vote could be taken. Mr. Knight followed the applicant out to invite her back into the meeting. The applicant was told that she was welcome to stay in the meeting when the Commissioners voted.
First stated motion:
In the matter of Case No. 031-02, based on the findings of facts and Staff’s recommendation, Mr. Littig moved to refer the construction of a new single-family home at 98 W. Apricot Avenue, to the Architectural Subcommittee for review of the following:
1. The mass and scale of the structure;
2. The possibility of lowering the roof;
3. The texture and application of the stucco system;
4. The window sections, including details showing how the windows would be mounted in the wall;
5. The door types and materials;
6. The window and door trim;
7. The soffit and fascia;
B. The porch and balcony columns, stairs and railings;
9. The material and texture of the foundation;
10.The retention of the existing retaining wall and entry steps to the property;
11.Addressing the grade changes on the north elevation at the property line; and
12.Returning to the full Historic Landmark Commission for final approval.
A short discussion followed. Ms. Rowland wanted it to be known that it was not so much the materials as the scale that was discerning on this particular lot. She again expressed her concerns about the overall feel of the house relative to the size of the lot.
Mr. Simonsen noted that the discussion should address what the zoning ordinance allows. He believed that the Commission needed to be very careful when it gives any kind of direction to an applicant and that the Commissioners are not being arbitrary in making a decision. He believed that scale is important but there are many two-story homes throughout the district. He suggested that there might be a way to help reduce the scale without the owners having to compromise their contemporary life style. Mr. Simonsen said that the discussions on scale were important.
Mr. Christensen said that he totally agreed with Mr. Simonsen. He also said that he would be more supportive of a house of this size if the materials being used on the exterior would feel more historic. He referred to a new house on Quince Street that went bad with using exterior materials of poor quality and lacking so much detail.
There was further discussion. Mr. Parvaz suggested that the retention of the retaining wall and the entry steps be added to the motion.
Mr. Simonsen said that there needed to be more definition of what the context of the streetscape is. Mr. Knight said that he would do a better job of assembling the streetscape, as well as show building heights.
Mr. Ashdown said that he would like to see that assembled. He thought of some structures like the big blue house off 600 North and just to the north of that. Mr. Knight said that he could get a count for the whole district and break it down to this immediate area.
Restated final motion:
In the matter of Case No. 031-02, based on the findings of facts and Staff's recommendation, Mr. Littig moved to refer the construction of a new single-family home at 98 W. Apricot Avenue, to the Architectural Subcommittee for review of the following:
1. The mass and scale of the structure;
2. The possibility of lowering the roof;
3. The texture and application of the stucco system;
4. The window sections, including details showing how the windows would be mounted in the wall;
5. The door types and materials;
6. The window and door trim;
7. The soffit and fascia;
8. The porch and balcony columns, stairs and railings;
9. The material and texture of the foundation;
10.The retention of the existing retaining wall and entry steps to the property;
11.Addressing the grade changes on the north elevation at the property line;
and
12.Returning to the full Historic Landmark Commission for final approval.
Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Heid was not present. Mr. Simonsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 032-02, at 587 No. West Capitol Street, by Lori Lewis and Lane Hansen, requesting legalization of a six-foot high vinyl fence. which was constructed without a building permit, in the side and rear yards of the property 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 the applicants, Lori Lewis and Lane Hansen, were requesting legalization of a vinyl fence that was partially installed this summer. She said that the property is zoned SR-1, a Special Development Pattern Residential zoning district.
Ms. Lew gave the following background: The applicants were requesting to complete the work begun on the construction of a vinyl fence in the side and rear yards. The two-story house with attached garages, is part of a group of more contemporary homes built on the west side of the street. Characteristics of the streetscape include a steep topography with a mix of modern, infill and historic homes. The home is sided with stucco and wood. The windows are vinyl clad wood windows.
The Preservation Staff recently became aware of the exterior work being done at this address. After verifying that a permit had not been issued for the construction of a fence, Staff contacted the City zoning enforcement Division, who issued a stop-work order and notified the property owner of the violation in a letter dated September 24, 2002. Upon receiving notification of the violation, Lori Lewis and Lane Hansen contacted the Preservation Staff. At that time, Staff suggested the applicant request legalization of the fence from the Historic Landmark Commission. Only the posts are currently in place. The fence would extend across the west and partially along the south and north boundaries of the yard.
It has been the practice of the Commission to discourage vinyl fencing in historic districts, and Staff does not administratively approve requests to construct fences that are made of a vinyl material. Requests for vinyl fencing are typically reviewed by the full Historic Landmark Commission and approved based on the individual merits of the case.
In 1996, the Commission reviewed a request to legalize a vinyl fence at 236 No. Canyon Road. The Commission allowed the fence even though it was readily visible from the street, because the style, scale, height, and detail of the fence were compatible with the character of the house and no historic features had been removed.
A similar case was reviewed last January for a property at 178 South 1200 East. In that case, the fence had been installed for 2-1/2 years and there had been no complaints during that period. The Commission approved the fence because they felt that the design complied with the design standards in terms of openness because it was a low profile fence {3 feet high) and a temporary element on the site that could be removed without detriment to the existing property.
Following the most recent inspection of the property, Staff also noticed that a new rear deck addition with vinyl railing and balusters had been installed without the appropriate permits. The City's zoning enforcement Division has not initiated enforcement proceedings on this violation at this time. The property owners will be required to resolve this issue with the Historic Landmark Commission at a later date. Advanced public notice of such requests must be provided prior to the Historic Landmark Commission's review of the item. Additionally, the Commission had consistently not allowed alternative building materials, such as vinyl, in similar applications because they are not historic materials, and thus create a false sense of a material that they are not (wood).
Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020{H) H Historic Preservation Overlay District of the Salt Lake City Zoning ordinance.
H Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with
the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of
entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of
materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually
compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian
improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Ms. Lew also referred to the section in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City addressing fences. The following applicable standards are found in the Design Standards for Site Features section:
1.3 For a replacement fence, use materials that appear similar to that of the original. A painted wood picket fence is an appropriate replacement in mist locations. A simple metal fence, similar to traditional "wrought iron" or wire, also may be considered. In all cases, the fence components should be similar in scale to those seen historically in the neighborhood.
1.4. A replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. Using a solid fence, with no spacing between the boards, is inappropriate in a front yard. Chain link is not allowed as a fence material where it would be visible from the street. Vinyl fencing is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, it is allowed if it is not seen from the street, if the style of the fence is compatible with the house and if the vinyl fence is not replacing a historic fence or landscape feature.
Staff's discussion: The design guidelines state that painted wood fences are generally suitable for use in historic districts. Staff typically encourages owners to consider lower than the four-foot high fence allowed in front yards in the city, because historically most fences were three feet or less. The components of the fence are similar in style to those seen historically in the neighborhood. The simple design of the fence is also compatible with the contemporary style of the house and no historic features will be removed to construct the fence. However, the fence would be six feet tall. A fence of this height would be a visible part of the streetscape, particularly on the north side of the property, and has the potential to negatively impact the historic character of the neighborhood. This potential is diminished by the fact that the property slopes steeply to the rear of the lot, there is existing vegetation that provides some screening and the fence would be a flat tan color. The Commission should consider if the fence would be a highly visible part of the streetscape that could negatively impact the historic character of the neighborhood.
Additionally, the fence is constructed of vinyl, a non-historic material. This type of material does not possess the physical characteristics (such as reflectivity and texture) or historical authenticity of a wood or metal fencing material. The Commission should also evaluate whether the allowance of vinyl fencing in this case would encourage the use of other artificial materials that could be detrimental to historic structures and the districts. Staff suggests the Commission consider a more appropriate material for those areas of the fence that would be visible from the street.
Staff's findings of fact: The request for legalization generally complies with the pertinent standards of Section 21A.34.020(H) of the zoning ordinance and the standards established by the Commission in previous cases. Although visible from the street, the fence would not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural, or archaeological material, the design is compatible with the character of the non-contributing house and is a temporary element on the site that could be removed without detriment to the existing property.
Ms. Lew offered the following Staff's recommendation: "Based on the above analysis, Staff does not oppose the request to install a vinyl fence at 567 No. West Capitol Street. The style of the fence is compatible with the house and the vinyl fence would not replace a historic fence or landscape feature. However Staff is concerned about increasing the negative visual impact to the surrounding neighborhood, particularly to the north, where the vinyl material would be most visible from the street. Recognizing that the use of artificial materials in some cases would be detrimental to historic structures and districts, Staff could recommend approval of a vinyl fence at this location, if the following conditions were met: 1) An appropriate material is used for the areas of the fence that would be visible from the street; and 2) The applicants obtain the necessary building permits for all exterior work affecting the property. If the Commission finds that further refinement is necessary, Staff recommends the Commission address any other outstanding issues in the conditions of approval."
Ms. Lew mentioned she received a telephone call from Ms. Minta Brandon, who stated that since vinyl siding is not allowed in the historic district, vinyl fencing should not be allowed as well.
Ms. Lew stated that following a most recent inspection on the property, it was discovered that there had been some work done on the back deck of the house. She added that there has been a new floor material placed down, as well as a vinyl railing and balusters has been installed without having the appropriate permit. Ms. Lew said that would be addressed at a later date under a separate case.
Mr. Simonsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Littig inquired if a contractor was involved on the job site when the zoning enforcement officer "red tagged" the job. Ms. Lew said that Staff received a first complaint, then the enforcement Division went out to look at it. She said that she is not certain who installed the fence. Mr. Littig asked if the fence was on both sides of the house. Mr. Simonsen said that it was around the rear on three sides. Ms. Lew concurred.
Mr. Simonsen stated that although there had been previous approvals of vinyl fencing, this Commission is under no obligation because each case is decided upon on an individual basis. He said that the Commission does not necessarily have to make the same finding as staff, as long as they follow what our ordinance provides in making decisions.
Ms. Mickelsen said that there is no indication that the whole fence would be exposed. Ms. Lew said there is a dotted line showing the location of the fence on the site plan that accompanied the staff report and suggested asking the applicant.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Mr. Simonsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
The applicant, Ms. Lori Lewis, was present. She stated that she and her husband, Lane Hansen, live in and own the property at 587 No. West Capitol Street.
Ms. Lewis made the following statement: "Generally the staff report was favorable and recommends approval with some concerns and I would like to address those concerns now. We have done just about everything we thought we could do to minimize the impact of this fence from the view of the street. That block of West Capitol is a one-way street. It is narrow and it runs on a diagonal. We live on the west side of the street. We are a noncontributing structure. We are surrounded by non-contributing structures as well. Across the street on the opposite corner, there is another non-contributing structure, which is an all-siding house. The three houses to the south of us are all stucco and very contemporary with sloping metal roofs so I don't think there will be an impact to that property. In fact on that block on West Capitol Street there is actually more non-contributing structures than there are historical homes.
“As to this specific property, the setback of the fence is approximately 90 feet on the south side of the house from the street. That is well into the back yard of the house and well past the front edge of the home. It does not start until the neighbor's garage is set back that far and that is where our fence starts and runs along the perimeter of their garage, and connects over to the house at that point.
“The north side of the house, the set back is about 30 feet from the front edge of the street. On that side it's a very narrow strip of land and we have landscaped it with a spruce tree which blocks the view of the front of the fence where it would connect to the side of the garage so it is not visible when you are directly in front of the home.
"There has been additional landscaping in place behind that blue spruce too to help the impact a little more from the north. That block of West Capitol is a one-way street. It is narrow and it runs on a diagonal. All the traffic on that street flows from the south to the north, so on the approach to the house you are not going to see the north side of the fence. You are not going to see the north side of the fence until you would pass the house in front of that non-conforming apartment building next door to us on the north and you look back over your shoulder and then you would see a portion of the north border. That portion of view is also obstructed by the apartment complex itself; it is also obstructed by the parking lot that is in front of that apartment complex; and it is also obstructed by a large garbage trash receptacle that is permanently facing the front yard, and so that also obstructs the view of the vinyl fence.
"The design and the color of the fence also visually blend in with the home. It is the exact same color of the stucco. It is an open design so that when you look at it visually the background of the stucco blends into the fence and it does not stand out as of an obtrusive design feature.
"There was some mention in the staff report about the height, the six-foot height, of the fence. This fence, like I said, is completely set back from the front of the yard. None of it protrudes into the front of the yard. In fact, on the north side it is even set back an additional six feet from the front edge of the home because that second garage there is also set back. None of it is protruding into the front yard and therefore that is why we did the six-foot fence all the way around. Also the six-foot fence on that north side of the house, as well in proportion to the house because it is very tall and that side of our house is about 30 feet tall so the smaller fence on that side may be out of proportion with the rest of the home.
"This is a new home and not an historic home, as I told you before. We are not surrounded by any historic property on either side of our property line. The fence will not be impacting any historical property on any boundary. On this side of West Capitol Street, there are many non-contributing homes. It gives the street a look and a feeling that is not as historical as the other areas deeper into the historic district and we are closer to the edge of the historic district.
"I feel that the design of the fence is compatible as the report says with the other design features that are required by your ordinance and the suggestion that we use a different material on the north side, I was wondering if the Commission would be open to a suggestion, as we just newly landscaped this whole backyard and that is part of the reason for the fence and keeping neighboring wandering animals out of there. Instead of using mixed materials in the construction, we would be willing to plant evergreen ivy on that north portion of the front so it would be covered naturally and would not stand out as much visually. We have already planted much of the yard. If our landscaper can get more plants we would plant that right away so it would start and cover the yard. Many other fences, the old chain link fences on the block have already done that. So that is a solution to part of the visual problem that we would be more than willing to undertake to help alleviate the visual problem on the north."
Mr. Simonsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Christensen led the discussion by inquiring if the applicant had hired a contractor to do the work. Ms. Lewis said that they had. Mr. Christensen inquired if the contractor did not realize that it was required to obtain a building permit in an historic district for a fence. Ms. Lewis said, "They know it now." She said that the contactor has not done much work in the historic district previous to this, but that they are well aware of it now. Ms. Lewis said that when the stop work order was issued, the inspector notified the contractor.
• Mr. Littig talked about the shine to a vinyl fence. Ms. Lewis said that the material would not be the traditional shiny white vinyl for the fence, like the one that was approved in the Memory Grove area. Ms. Lewis talked about planting vegetation to grow up over the fence to help disguise it. Mr. Littig said that he had not had any personal experiences with vinyl fences.
• Ms. Mickelsen asked why the fence had to be six feet high. Ms. Lewis said that a six-foot fence was permitted by ordinance in the back yard. She described how the property sloped down in the back yard and the height was needed. Ms. Lewis said that they wanted to be buffered 'from the apartment house next door. She also said that they have had numerous problems with the neighbor's animals, as well and a six-foot fence would provide some privacy and some buffer to the problems they have experienced.
• Mr. Ashdown asked for the name of the contractor. Ms. Lewis said that it was Marvin Brothers Landscaping. He inquired if her contractor told her if it was possible to mix materials such as leaving the vinyl posts in place and changing the fencing material to wood. Ms. Lewis said that she did not believe it would be possible because there are binders that 'fix and hold the vinyl slats in place. She added that the posts would have to be removed to put up another kind of fence.
Ms. Lewis said, "Just one more thing that I want to denote is that although I realize by your comments that you are not bound by your previous decisions, those decisions were approved vinyl fences on historic homes in historic districts and this is an non-conforming home, yes, located in an historic district, but not surrounded by any other historic homes directly on the property line where this fence would impact."
As a point of order, Mr. Simonsen said that he had to leave the meeting and make a presentation himself to another Commission. He handed the responsibility of Chair over to Ms. Mickelsen, who is the Vice Chair of the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Mickelsen assumed the position as Acting Chair at 5:20P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen 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. Shirley McLaughlan, the writer of the letter the Commissioners received earlier in the meeting, who resides in the neighborhood, stated that she wanted to add to the letter that she has lived in her home for 15 years and "I have come to believe right now that it is who you know, because when I got my building permit to build my fence I was told that I was only allowed to build a four-foot fence to the corner of the yard and it could only be cedar, Now I resent somebody else getting it and I can't". Ms. Mickelsen asked when she put up her fence. Ms. McLaughlan said that it was 15 years ago. Ms. Mickelsen said that it was before the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City was in use. Mr. Knight said that 15 years ago, the staff was not seeing vinyl fences. Ms. McLaughlan said that they were not allowed in an historic district. Ms. Rowland said that she did not think vinyl fences were being made 15 years ago.
Ms. Laughlan's letter pointed out that she ''would like nothing better than to put up vinyl siding, vinyl eaves, vinyl rain gutters, and a fence other than wood or wrought iron. So, do you see what a chain reaction this will cause? If you do it for one, you must do it for all. We as Capitol Hill strongly object to this unfair favoritism. We expect our historic rules to be upheld. They should not be any different. If there isn't already, there should be a fine for people who don't get building permits."
• Ms. Minta Brandon, who resides in the neighborhood, asked why a permit was not obtained. She said that Ms. Lewis has lived in the area long enough. She talked about the chain link fence she used to have and when it was replaced, she did not want wood so she had wrought iron installed. Ms. Brandon believed that vinyl fencing cost about the same as wrought iron. She said that it bothers her when she hears, “we don't apply to the new rules because we are not historic". Granted, Ms. Brandon said, Ms. Lewis' home is not historic, but it is on "historic ground". She said that the homes on the east side of West Capitol Street are historic homes, but the ones on the west side are non-contributing. Ms. Brandon talked about consistency in making decisions by the Commission. She said, "If this vinyl fence is allowed with all the rest you are making a difference for others with these newer homes. They still must abide by the old rules of the old house. I was young when I moved into an old area. I had to conform to the area. It has to be this way too. Ms. Lewis is an attorney. She knows the rules." Ms. Brandon thought that vinyl fencing looks fine in the suburbs, but not in the historic district. She cited some properties where the owners had work done on the weekend hoping to get away with using unapproved materials. Ms. Brandon stated that there had to be enforcement of these rules and stop changing them to "meet people's fancies". She again talked about the large new homes that have been built in the district. Ms. Brandon said, “ She did not want any of those homes up there. Not built that big. We wanted them to match the rest of us, but since we are stuck with them, it is no sign that they don't have to abide like the rest of us." Mr. Knight clarified that enforcement action was taken on one building on Clinton Avenue to which Ms. Brandon referred, and the owner was willing to correct the mistake.
• Ms. Katherine Gardner, Chair of the East Capitol Community Council, stated, 'Working on the weekend isn't what it used to be". She talked about the growth of the area and watching all the new construction. Ms. Gardner inquired about the color of the vinyl fencing. Ms. Lew said that the color would be tan and not the traditional white. Ms. Gardner said that the posts look like they are white. Ms. Lewis said that they were the same tan color. Ms. Gardner asked about the six-foot height of the fence. Ms. Mickelsen said that a six-foot fence could be used in the rear and sides, but not in the front. Ms. Gardner said that when builders get building permits in historic district, there should be "Historic District" stamped right on the permit. Ms. Gardner encouraged the Historic Landmark Commission to make the right decision and "not add 587 East Capitol Boulevard to the list of past approvals of vinyl fencing in historic districts.
Ms. Lewis said that she wanted to clarify the issue of the deck. She stated the following, ”That deck was already existing. It was built there. We removed the top slats and put Trex slats down, which according to your guidelines is appropriate for flat surfaces. We removed the railings and put the vinyl railings, which we anticipated would match the fence. That deck is not visible at all from the front of the house. It is not visible from our neighbors to the south. It is visible from the apartments from the north."
Ms. Mickelsen said that she could see the vinyl railing of the deck from the street.
Ms. Lewis said that the view would be blocked further because of the landscaping and shrubbery that would be planted on that side. She again said that the plane of the deck was already in place. Ms. Lewis said that they just removed it and replaced it. Ms. Lewis said, "Yes, I am an attorney. I'm not a specialist in zoning and ordinance rules, and I hired a contractor to do that for me."
Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Mickelsen said that the chair would entertain a motion at any time. She pointed out that this is substantially a different case because the fence has not yet been built.
First motion:
In the matter of Case No. 032-02, Mr. Littig moved to disallow the vinyl fence at 587 No. West Capitol Street where construction was started. The design is not faulted but the materials are not appropriate in an historic district and a proper type of fence should be constructed. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion.
Mickelsen said that the Commission has to make its own findings. Mr. Christensen said in case this is appealed, it is necessary to cite the reasons for the denial.
Mr. Ashdown reminded the Commissioners of the case that was reviewed in the district where there was a metal roof installed by a contractor who did not take out a permit. He said, "I am adverse to approving anything that a contractor forgot the permit on. I realize that is not directly our responsibility but it is our responsibility to make sure that the contractor checks to see whether it is an historic district or not, and the contractor did not." Ms. Mickelsen said that was not under the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission to make those decisions.
Mr. Christensen said that he did not blame the owner because it is easy not to understand all the rules, but contractors should know what the rules are when they work in the Salt Lake Valley.
The motion was amended.
Amended final motion:
In the matter of Case No. 032-02, Mr. Littig moved to disallow the vinyl fence at 587 No. West Capitol Street where construction was started. The design is not faulted but the materials are not appropriate in an historic district and a proper type of fence should be constructed. Based on the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, the findings are as follows:
Section 1.3 For a replacement fence, use materials that appear similar to that of the original. The materials on the replacement fence would not be compatible with the character of the house and district. Replacement fences in historic districts should be a simple metal fence or a similar traditional wrought iron or wire also may be considered. In any case, the fence component should be similar in scale to the historic neighborhoods. In this case, the fence material is out of character.
Section1.4 A replacement fence should have a "transparent" quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. The design of the fence would be appropriate in an historic neighborhood.
Mr. Ashdown's second still stood. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Parvaz voted "Aye". Ms. Rowland was opposed and Mr. Gordon abstained. Ms.
Heid and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Mickelsen noted the appeals process on the back of the agenda.
OTHER BUSINESS
It was announced that Ms. Giraud was traveling in Paris, France.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Ms. Rowland moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 5:40P.M.