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 William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Mark Wilson, and Elizabeth Giraud.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, and Amy Rowland, and Mark Wilson. Wayne Gordon, Robert Payne, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, and Elizabeth Giraud, Preservation Planner.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Orlan Owen. Mr. Owen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Owen asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Mr. Owen introduced Mark Wilson, a new member of the Historic Landmark
Commission. He was welcomed by the other members.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from the September 15, 1999 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Parvaz. Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. Rowland voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Wilson abstained. Mr. Owen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 017-99. at 615 No. West Capitol Street by Nathan Jones. represented by Allen Roberts. from Cooper/Roberts Architects, requesting a new rear addition and a new two-car garage on site.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that the applicant would need a variance from the Board of Adjustment because the proposed garage would be in front of the house. Ms. Giraud reported that because of the steep topography and the uneven slopes of the land in the Capitol Hill area, the Board of Adjustment had made allowances in the past and permitted garages to be constructed in front of the main building. Ms. Giraud said that she believed the design of the project should be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission before a variance was requested.
Ms. Giraud said that the existing house is set down off the street and is difficult to see from the street. She said that the applicant plans to make some landscaping changes in the front yard that would be an improvement to the streetscape.
Ms. Giraud reviewed staff’s findings of fact. She pointed out that the discussion and finding for Criteria No. 4, Subdivision of Lots, was not correct. Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Paterson informed her that if a large parcel was being subdivided for new housing, a determination had to be made that the pattern of the subdivision would be consistent with the pattern that had already been established in an historic district.
Ms. Giraud said that the staff recommended approval of the proposed addition and garage, and recommended that the Historic Landmark Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the Board of Adjustment for a variance for the siting of the garage.
Mr. Allen Roberts of Cooper/Roberts Architects, was present, representing the applicant. Mr. Roberts said that he concurred with the staff’s evaluation of the project. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Roberts said that the original building was a one-room house built in the 1950's with a bathroom in the back. Mr. Roberts said that the owners at that time, expanded the front of house about ten years ago and his architectural firm did that project so he was familiar with the property.
Mr. Roberts described the scope of the proposed project, as outlined in the staff report. He said that currently, the building is covered with shingles which is not a material that was used historically in the Capitol Hill area. He added that stucco is a historic material that has been used on many of the buildings in the district. Mr. Roberts said that the applicant is requesting to remove the shingles from the facades and stucco the exterior of the building. He concluded by saying that most of the changes would be in the rear of the existing building. Mr. Roberts said that the addition would not be visible from the street and barely visible from the adjacent properties.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich led the discussion by asking for clarification of the stucco application. Mr. Roberts said the dyed-synthetic stucco, would have a smooth, sand, finish. He added that it would not be a Dryvit (a thin coat of stucco over a layer of Styrofoam insulation board) application and not textured. Ms. Jakovcev Ulrich inquired about the proposed windows. Mr. Roberts said the single-pane wood windows would match the existing building for the most part with a few exceptions.
• Ms. Rowland asked if the addition would be visible from Wall Street. Mr. Roberts said that it would not because the property had dense landscaping and was very wooded.
• Parvaz asked if the applicant had plans to change any of the landscaping. Mr.
Roberts said that the applicant plans to have cobblestone retaining walls, a patio, a sauna, and hot tub constructed in the rear section. He said that due to the fifteen foot drop, the steps have to be reconfigured around the garden and plantings.
Mr. Owen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Owen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Giraud said that ordinarily a new addition and garage would be approved administratively, but due to the scope of the project, staff believed that the project should be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission at a regularly-scheduled meeting so the neighbors would be notified of the proposal. When asked, Ms. Giraud said that she had not received any comments from the neighbors.
Ms. Rowland moved to approve Case No. 017-99, as presented, based on the staff's findings of fact and staff's recommendation, included in the staff report. It was seconded by Mr. Parvaz. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Owen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 018-99. at 165 South 1100 East. by Richard Wilson. requesting to construct a new house.
This case was postponed at the applicant's request.
Case No. 019-99. at 204 No. State Street. by Earl and Charlene Booth. requesting to install Owens-Corning "Mira Vista Shake" roofing on the house.
Mr. Wright presented the staff report, on behalf of Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, who was attending a conference in Washington D.C., by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Mr. Wright said that the house was in the direct path of the August 11, 1999 tornado that hit Salt Lake City. He said that most of the damage had occurred to the roof and the grounds.
Mr. Wright said that the applicants are requesting that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the use of Owens-Corning Mira Vista Shake roofing composite shingle to be used as a substitute for a wood shingle or an asphalt shingle. Mr. Wright said that he and Mr. Knight visited three sites that had installed the Mira Vista Shake material on the roofs so they could get a "better feel for the nature of this product". He pointed out that the product is new in this region, but was researched and put on the market in California in 1995. Mr. Wright noted that the composite material has not been used extensively. He said that the applicants were concerned about maintenance requirements of the very steep roof and the fire hazard of wood shingles. Mr. Wright displayed a sample of the composite shingle. He added that each shingle is manufactured individually and not as a panel of shingles.
Mr. Wright said that the Commission has policies regarding substitute materials, which was outlined in the staff report. He pointed out that the Historic Landmark Commission had approved substitute roofing materials, such as architectural-grade asphalt shingles.
Mr. Wright proceeded through staff’s findings of fact and staff’s recommendation, which were included in the staff report. He stated that staff recommended approval by the Historic Landmark Commission for the Mira Vista Shake composite shingle or an architectural-grade asphalt shingle, as a substitute material for wood in this case. Mr. Wright said that staff believes that the proposed material would not detract from the characteristic of the house. He continued by saying that after an analysis of the roofs complicated nature and its steepness;· staff believes that the substitute material could be used and used appropriately. He pointed out that if the Historic Landmark Commission approved this product, it would not be available to all roofs everywhere in historic districts and each case would have to be reviewed separately.
Mr. Wright said that currently the staff approves most asphalt shingles or wood replacing wood shingles. He said that he believed that the Historic Landmark Commission should make a policy that the use of composite material for shingles should be made by the Historic Landmark Commission and not administratively.
Ms. Mitchell said that the staff report states in Criteria No. 10, "Certain building materials are prohibited including the following: a) vinyl or aluminum cladding when applied directly to an original or historic material, and b) any other imitation siding material designed to look like wood siding but fabricated from an imitation material or materials." She said that she realized that the case is not dealing with siding, but she did not believe there was much difference in the interpretation from the side of the building or the roof of the building, especially when the roof is as prominent as applicant's. Mr. Wright said, "In staff’s perspective, this criteria refers to siding, and obviously we are here to hear you discuss the appropriateness of this as a roofing material. You could apply that to any properties on the house, but staff did not want to make that conclusion and preferred to have the Commission evaluate this as a roofing material and not siding material."
The applicants, Earl and Charlene Booth, were present, as well as their representative, Ted Booth. Mr. Ted Booth stated that the applicants had made an extensive investigation of roofing materials. He said that the Booth's were looking for an appropriate balance between the aesthetics and the historical integrity of the building. Mr. Ted Booth also said that the Booth's were looking at the practical applications, such as the maintenance and the life of the material. He added that the applicants ruled out wood for a number of reasons. Mr. Ted Booth stated, "We think it is a nineteenth century product and not a twentieth century product. We think that the technology in the Mira Vista Shake does strike the appropriate balance between preserving the historic integrity of the building, but also allowing some new technology that doesn't have the down sides of a wood roof." Mr. Ted Booth said that the applicants would be paying about $16,000 more to use the composite product.
Mr. Ted Booth, continued by saying that the Booth's believed that the Mira Vista Shake would make a better-looking roof, than the architectural-grade asphalt shingles. He said, "In 1890, I don't think asphalt shingles were around so, technically, I don't believe that an asphalt shingle is historically accurate although it is clearly made as an accommodation simply because of some practical concerns with the wood roof."
Ms. Charlene Booth gave a brief history of the house and said that it has been in her family since the late 1950's. She also talked about the experience of shopping for roofing material. She circulated photographs of the house some of which showed that there were layers of scalloped shingles around the building and the turret, which was confirmed by stripping the roof.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by saying that after seeing an example of the Mira Vista Shake on the house on Eleventh Avenue, he found that he was very concerned about the shiny surface of the shakes and if the shakes would be installed in a set pattern. Mr. Ted Booth said that the Owens Corning representative said that the company had changed the process in manufacturing the product which removed the sheen. He said that the representative said that the applicants would receive the newer product and would not be forced to use the current stock. Mr. Littig expressed his concern that the composite shakes could not be tapered to fit on the turret. Mr. Ted Booth said that an alternative plan would be to use the composite shakes on the main roof and use wood shingles on the turret. Ms. Booth affirmed the concept of putting wood shingles on the turret. Mr. Earl Booth said that the turret currently is covered with sheet metal and talked about the cone shape of the turret. He said that the top of the turret is covered with a metal finial which would cover any cosmetic fit problems. Mr. Littig inquired if the applicant had an example of architectural-grade asphalt shingles. Mr. Ted Booth said that the applicants did not have one with them but they had looked at some samples.
• Mr. Wilson inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission approved the material on the house on Eleventh Avenue which the Commissioners saw on the field trip. Mr. Wright said that the house is not in an historic district or a landmark site so no approval by the Commission or administration was necessary.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired if the applicants would remove all roofing materials. Mr. Ted Booth said that the roof will be stripped from all roofing materials and then re sheathed. He said that there are 110 years of roofing materials coming off. Mr. Ted Booth said that there would also be layers of felt and a water shield material applied under the roofing material Mr. Parvaz inquired if any of the siding was damaged. Ms. Booth said there were a few places that will need to be painted where branches hit the house.
• Ms. Miller also inquired if the shakes would be applied in a set pattern or at random. Mr. Earl Booth said that there were three different sized shakes and they would be randomly applied with a ten-inch lap. There was further discussion regarding this issue. Ms. Booth said that she had seen pictures where the material on the turret was different than the material on the main section of the roof, such as copper, bar tile, or a different kind of shingle, such as wood. Ms. Booth said that the most prominent portion of the roof is the turret She added that when the trees grow back, most of the roof would be hidden again. Ms. Miller expressed her concerns about using a wood shake on the turret and an imitation shake on the rest of the roof because they would weather differently. Ms. Booth said that if wood was used on the turret, it would be shingle and not shake. Mr. Wright said that he believed that applicants would not be trying to match the material on the roof and the turret; that they would have a different appearance.
• Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich suggested extending and refinishing the metal that is currently on the turret Mr. Ted Booth said that they have asked the roofer to give them a price on copper sheathing and shingles.
The discussion continued regarding the application of the composite material and the contour of the turret. Mr. Ted Booth said if the Historic Landmark Commission approves the Mira Vista Shake product and "we find out that the product would not work on the turret, then we would like to have the option to use wood shingles".
Mr. Owen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Owen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Rowland said, "Evidently the City made the policy, if someone was replacing a deteriorated wood roof with architectural-grade asphalt shingles, that would be an issue that would not have to be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission, is that what I understood." Mr. Wright said, 'That was correct. If the applicant had chosen to do that, it would have been administratively approved." Ms. Rowland said that she believed the roofing material would be an improvement over any asphalt shingle. Mr. Littig said that his only reservation in using the product was the sheen and Mr. Booth addressed that problem.
A lengthy discussion took place regarding the issues previously talked about and the wording of a motion.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich moved to approve using Owens-Corning Mira Vista Shake roofing material for Case No. 019-99, only, with the following conditions: 1) expectation of the new dull finish, that the applicants discussed, so the sheen would be cut back; 2) requesting that details be photographically documented;
3) the roofing materials be applied randomly so there would not be a recognizable
or a repetitious pattern; and 4) recommending that metal shingles, of some kind, be used on the turret to differentiate between the main part of the roof and the turret. This recommendation was based on the comparison of what it would be like to use asphalt shingles. The roof would lose some of its three-dimensionality and sculptural quality that is has now with wood shingles.
Mr. Owen said that Mr. Wright suggested having two separate motions. There was some further discussion regarding the wording of the motion. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich amended the motion.
Final motion:
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich moved to approve using Owens-Corning Mira Vista Shake roofing material for Case No. 019-99, only, with the following conditions: 1) expectation to use the new dull finish, that the applicants discussed, so the sheen would be cut back; 2) requesting that details be photographically documented; 3) the roofing materials be applied randomly so there would not be a recognizable or a repetitious pattern; and 4) recommending that metal shingles, of some kind, be used on the turret to differentiate between the main part of the roof and the turret; however, the applicant has the option to select another material for the turret, which would have to be reviewed by the Architectural Subcommittee and administratively approved. This recommendation was based on the comparison of what it would be like to use asphalt shingles. The roof would lose some of its three-dimensionality and sculptural quality that is has now with wood shingles. The second still stood by Ms. Miller. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Owen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
The discussion turned to the policy issues for using the composite material. Ms. Rowland suggested that the Commission may want to revisit the use of this particular roofing material once it has been installed. Mr. Wright believed that staff would encourage that, as well.
Subsequent motion:
Mr. Littig moved that all non-traditional, composite, materials for roofing, other than asphalt, which is currently approved, be reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmark Commission on a case-by-case basis. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Owen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 020-99. at 1268 East 200 South. by Jack and Betty Greenhalgh. requesting to legalize vinyl siding on a rear addition and aluminum soffits installed on the building without a permit
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that if the contractor would have applied for a building permit, it would have triggered a staff review, in which case, staff would not have allowed the vinyl siding to be applied. Ms. Giraud circulated photographs of the building that were taken in about 1991, prior to this work being done, which showed the detailing on the fascia in front of the building. She reported that since the Greenhalghs are dissatisfied with the work, they would like to have the siding removed from the front porch columns and fascia’s. However, Ms. Giraud said that the Greenhalghs would like to keep the vinyl siding on the soffits. She said that staff believed the material underneath these recently-clad soffits is wood, so the Commission should deny this part of the application.
Ms. Giraud said that on the Sanborn maps, there was a dash line in both 1911 and 1950 showing the current outline of the porches, but she could not find out if they were enclosed at that time. She said that many apartment buildings have bead board on the rear porches because it was a very common feature in older structures.
Ms. Giraud said that the Greenhalghs have "suffered at the hands of the contractor who did not follow through with his end of what he was required to do. I am happy to go after the contractor in terms having Roger Evans investigate having the State Licensing Board look into this and perhaps trying to get some cooperation from that contractor to help the Greenhalghs. We can pursue this matter at the staff level."
Mr. Wilson inquired if the Commission was being used to pursue the Greenhalghs' dissatisfaction with the contractor. Ms. Giraud said, "That wasn't the situation. The work was stopped. It was reported to me that illegal vinyl siding was being installed on this historic building, so the work was stopped by the City Enforcement Officer. That is when it came to the attention of the Greenhalghs. I was contacted by someone else, not the Greenhalghs."
Ms. Miller inquired if there was anything in the ordinance about the use of materials on facades that are visible from the street, as opposed to facades that are not visible from the street Ms. Giraud said that the ordinance pertained to all facades.
There was some discussion about the material under the siding. Ms. Giraud said that it looked like wood in the historic photographs. There was also a question whether or not the wood material was removed before the vinyl was installed.
The applicants, Jack and Betty Greenhalgh, and their representative, Steve Greenhalgh were present. Mr. Jack Greenhalgh inquired about the status of the members of the Historic Landmark Commission. Mr. Wright said that each Commission member is a volunteer appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council. Mr. Jack Greenhalgh said that he certainly commended the Commission members for their time that they volunteer.
Mr. Jack Greenhalgh said that he and his wife acquired the apartment building in about 1992. Ms. Greenhalgh said that her brother bought the Hillview Apartments in the late 1960's. She said that her brother informed her by a previous owner that the back porches were enclosed sometime after World War II. Ms. Greenhalgh explained what her brother had hoped to do with the property.
Mr. Steve Greenhalgh summarized the situation by saying that the applicants believe that the enclosed back porches were not original to the structure, and the information Ms. Greenhalgh received from her brother was reliable. Mr. Steve Greenhalgh said that the applicants would like the vinyl siding to be removed from the front of the building, but would like the vinyl siding on the back to remain, since there is no visible proof of the original material. He said that the Greenhalghs will have to "hatch it out" with the contractor and will probably have to go to court. He added that the contractor has not been available.
Mr. Steve Greenhalgh continued by saying that the applicants are trying to keep affordable housing in the building to students because of its proximity. He said that they had a waiting list. Mr. Steve Greenhalgh said that Ms. Giraud and the staff had been very helpful to them and that she introduced the issue of tax credits that might be available.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Rowland led the discussion by inquiring further into the original material. Mr. Steve Greenhalgh explained that the Commission members were taken into one of the apartments to look at the inside on the field trip. He said the inside material looks like bead board and a mixture of materials.
• Ms. Miller inquired what material was underneath the vinyl siding and if it was repaired in any way. Mr. Steve Greenhalgh said that he believed no repair was done. Mr. Jack Greenhalgh affirmed that and said that no repair work was done.
• Mr. Parvaz inquired if the wood work was part of the original building. Mr. Greenhalgh said that part of it was. There was some discussion regarding the original wood. Ms. Giraud said that the Greenhalghs feel confident that it is not an historic material.
Mr. Steve Greenhalgh said that he would like to reiterate that the applicants were not contending any of the soffits, columns, or details in the front; only the siding on the rear of the building. Mr. Owen said that he believed that the members of the Commission realized that.
Mr. Jack Greenhalgh said that they had spent in the range of $35,000 this year on a new roof and other maintenance problems and did not know there was such a thing as an historic district or tax credits.
Mr. Owen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested person, stated that she wanted to read a section of the Small University Small Area Plan, in respect to street corners, that was adopted by the City Council and predates the formation of the University Historic District: "Corners in the Thirteenth East-University District are visually prominent and the design of corner buildings has great impact on the character of street and surrounding area."
• Ms. Cromer discussed three apartment houses that were close by. She said that the Hillview Apartments is a very important building to the district. Ms. Cromer continued by saying that she had not heard any conversation pertaining to the vinyl siding being applied to the columns and she hoped the Commission would address that in its decision. Ms. Cromer said that the Greenhalghs should have been notified that the building was on the National Register of Historic Places when they purchased the property.
Ms. Cromer said that she saw the siding being applied. She made the following statement: "I did speak with the person who identified himself as the supervisor of the crew and he told me that he had pulled a permit for this job l think that is relevant information that he said that to me when I asked him about the nature of the work "
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Owen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded in the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired if there had been a previous approval for vinyl siding on the back of a building. Ms. Giraud said that she could not find an approval on a contributing structure.
Ms. Rowland said that she was normally "anti-vinyl siding", but given the circumstances, she was comfortable with maintaining the vinyl siding on the back porches, but definitely have it removed the soffits, the fascia, the columns, and all the details in the front. She said that the back porches were probably fire escape decks, originally. She added that permits most likely would not have been necessary in the post World War II era.
There was a lengthy discussion regarding the issues surrounding the vinyl siding. Some members believed that the applicants would be better off in the long run to remove the vinyl siding and repair or replace the materials underneath. Some members believed that the material underneath the vinyl siding on the back porches was not historic, that the vinyl siding could remain on the back. The restrictions placed upon a property eligible for tax credits were also discussed.
The subject changed to the enforcement issue. Mr. Wright said that it would be helpful if the Historic Landmark Commission made a statement so the applicants would not be restricted to a certain time period to remove the siding because "it obviously will end up in city court". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich said that the removal of the vinyl siding on the front should not have to wait for court action. Mr. Wright said that he believed that would be reasonable.
Ms. Giraud said that she met with Charles Shepherd of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). She explained the following: "Mr. Wilson Martin of SHPO signs off on the tax credits. Mr. Martin indicated to Mr. Shepherd that the vinyl siding should be removed from the front of the building, including the soffits, and if the vinyl siding remained on the rear, there was a possibility that the Greenhalghs would still be eligible for tax credits."
Ms. Giraud noted that she thinks of herself as a preservationist but she did not believe that the vinyl siding on the rear was a "terrible solution". She said that there were no character-defining features removed. She said that the optimum solution would be to start over with those back porches and either rebuild them or reinforce them, so they would be more stable.
Ms. Giraud made the following statement: "I really can't say that having that vinyl siding on the back is substantially detracting from this building or from the historic district. I never thought I would hear myself say something like that. The problem we have, is what the Greenhalghs found out. To their dismay, the vinyl siding sales people are very aggressive, very avaricious. I feel, I am comfortable with having that on tape, because I get so many phone calls about this in some ordinances I have read where vinyl siding was allowed if no character-defining features are removed. We don't have that option in this city. There is no way we could keep up with a permitting process where Nelson or I would be supervising every job That would never happen. I think we will be having more discussions in the next couple of months We will be reexamining our policies and when things should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and when things should not My issue is more with setting a precedent. Maybe we need to reexamine our policy upon which we set those precedents."
There was more discussion about the condition of the material underneath the vinyl siding on the back. Ms. Miller said that she believed that the vinyl siding was not a "great solution from a longevity standpoint." She said that if the material underneath the vinyl siding was not in very good condition, the application of the vinyl siding would not make it worse. Some other members agreed. Mr. Owen expressed his concern that the vinyl on the rear porches may be masking some structure deterioration in the near future. The discussion continued.
Motion for the front portion of the building:
Mr. Littig moved to enforce so that the original materials be returned to the surface and all the details returned if they have been removed for Case No. 020- 99. The Historic Landmark Commission's concern is the soffits, fascia, columns, fascia on the balconies, as well, on the front, which would be the east, west, and north facades. It was seconded by Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Owen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Wilson said if the ordinance says, no vinyl siding, can the Commission allow vinyl siding. Ms. Giraud said that the ordinance says that no vinyl siding on original or historic materials would be allowed and there is a question on the rear of the building if the original or historic materials were covered up. Motion for the rear portion of the building: Ms. Miller said regarding Case No. 020-99, that the owners be allowed to keep the vinyl on the rear porches of the building because the Historic Landmark Commission is uncertain that the vinyl was applied to original or historic materials. In the future, if the vinyl siding is removed, that it not be replaced with a material that is not approved in historic district. That the Commission would review situations like this on a case-by-case basis. The Historic Landmark Commission will revisit this as a policy issue regarding the application of artificial siding on contributing structures. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Wilson voted "Aye". Mr. Parvaz abstained. Mr. Owen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
The Greenhalghs thanked the staff and Commission for the help they have received.
OTHER BUSINESS
Future orientation and training meetings:
• Ms. Giraud said that on November 3rd, staff would have an orientation for the Commission going over protocol and past cases, and on November 17th Mr. Don Hartley from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will discuss appropriate materials in historic districts. Planning Commission review of the revised changes to the economic hardship ordinance. Ms. Giraud said that at the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, October 21st, the Planning Commission will review the revised economic hardship ordinance. She said that when the revisions pass, at that level, it will to the City Council. Ms. Giraud said the presence of Historic Landmark Commission members would be helpful at the City Council.
Ms. Mitchell inquired about the attitude of Planning Commission members about the revisions. Mr. Wright said more than likely, some members will believe that it would not go far enough; that the ordinance needed to be more restrictive and less available.
Owner of demolition sites making materials available to the public:
There was some discussion regarding making historic architectural features and materials available to the public by the owners of buildings designated to be demolished. There was a short discussion regarding this possibility.
Adjournment of the meeting,
As there was no other business, Mr. Owen asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Parvaz so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:30 P.M.