SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Vicki Mickelsen, Chair; Paula Carl, Dave Fitzsimmons, Warren Lloyd, Soren Simonsen and Scott Christensen.
Present from the Planning Staff were: Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner; and Louise Harris, Senior Secretary.
The meeting was called to order by Vicki Mickelsen, Chair, at 4:15p.m. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item on the agenda would be followed in the order as written except the report of the Planning Director. At this time, Ms. Mickelsen asked if anyone wanted to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda. Seeing none, she moved to the approval of minutes.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to approve the minutes. It was seconded by Ms. Carl. Paula Carl, Dave Fitzsimmons, Warren Lloyd and Soren Simonsen voted “Aye”. Mr. Christensen abstained. There were none opposed, the motion passed.
Public Hearings
No. 024-05. at 1203 E. Fourth Avenue. by Roger Rougelot. requesting approval to construct a new detached garage. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
In the absence of Ms. Lew, the case was presented by Ms. Cheri Coffey with the findings of fact and staff's recommendation. The structure is a 720 square foot two car, detached garage with a 6:12 gabled, asphalt shingled roof that rises 17 feet at the peak.
The exterior wall materials will be cultured brick veneer. The gable ends and dormers will be sided with Hardiplank lap siding. The two single-car garage doors will have true divided-light panels on the upper part of the door. The windows on the west and east elevations of the dormer will be aluminum clad. The applicant is also proposing to move the driveway and landscape the existing curb cut area.
The proposed garage would face west and be accessible from “U” Street. The two new separate driveways are proposed to accommodate an existing utility pole and a mature tree in the park strip. The utility company will not allow the pole to be moved.
The Salt Lake Transportation Division has reviewed and approved this plan.
Based on the analysis, the Planning Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
• Review of the final details of the design of the proposed project including any concerns or suggestions expressed by the Commission, shall be delegated to Planning Staff.
• This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements.
A copy of the Staff Report is filed with these minutes.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the Commission had questions for the staff.
Mr. Lloyd indicated the plans looked as if there were never sidewalks. He asked if sidewalks were ever to be installed would they interfere with this design. Ms. Coffey indicated there are property line issues in this area. She felt that because of these issues, she didn't think the City would ever put in sidewalks.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were no further questions for staff. The applicants were invited to come forward and give their name and address.
Mr. Ross Rougelot, 1203 E. Fourth Avenue, property owner, came forward and indicated the old garage was torn down last April (A permit was issued for the demolition). He also indicated that a concrete retaining wall would be installed on the west side of the building and it would require a Revocable Permit. Mr. Rougelot mentioned that a part of the existing flower bed would have to be removed.
Mr. Christensen asked if the existing tree would be affected by the proposed driveway.
Mr. Rougelot indicated that the proposed plan would not affect the tree. He didn't want to remove the tree as it matches a series of trees on the block and he didn't want to pay for removal of the pole. Barry Walsh of Transportation Division has looked at the proposed two car driveway and has stated it meets all the required turning radius's. Mr. Rougelot stated if he had to, he would move the garage north, get rid of the pole and have a two car entrance. The least expensive thing would be to remove the tree, but he really doesn't want to do that.
Mr. Simonsen asked what type of material is does planned for the soffit and facia.
Mr. Roger Rougelot, of 2208 East Atkin Avenue, applicant, indicated a material called Trim Craft would be used. It's a composite material that looks and acts like wood, but is more stable than wood and does need to be painted. The design will have a 1 X 8 facia board. The soffit board will step back about 2” with a piece of crown molding that drops down to another piece of the Trim Craft that will act as the finish board that wraps around the front and back of the garage to act as a separation of the brick and the siding at the gable ends.
Mr. Lloyd asked if the west and south elevation showed brick and ask it the north showed it as well.
Mr. Roger Rougelot indicated it is brick all the way around. It's a cultured thin veneer brick. The gable ends will have siding. He indicated that Ross Rougelot wanted it to look like it was built in a different time then the house. It is actually less expensive to use this type of brick than the brick used on the house.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the upper level was usable or just decorative.
Mr. Roger Rougelot indicated the upper level is just for storage with access from an extension ladder. The windows will be aluminum clad wood windows. The door on the south side will be a vertical grain Fir Simpson door with half light. The two windows on the south side will be double casement windows and the ones on the dormer are double hung windows.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any more questions. She asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment. Seeing none, she would closed the Public Hearing and went into the Executive Session to discuss the project or entertain a motion.
Mr. Christensen asked staff if cultured brick was acceptable.
Ms. Giraud indicated that she was not familiar with something that has been approved on a regular basis. She knew that cultured stone has been approved, but generally not for an entire house. Usually materials like clapboard or Hardiplank siding have been used.
Motion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved that in Case Number 024-05 that the Commission approve the project presented with the recommendations of the Planning Staff. The approval is subject to the follow conditions:
• Reveal the final details of the design including the special brick detailing.
• Approval is for the design only.
• Project must meet applicable City requirements.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Soren Simonsen. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Lloyd, Ms. Carl, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Fitzsimmons all voted “Aye”. No one was opposed. The motion passed.
Case No. 026-05. at 763 E. Third Avenue. by Bruce and Margaret Landesman. requesting approval to enclose part of the front porch for a sunroom and rebuild the porch. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Giraud indicated this house was built in 1909 and has had a succession of owners. This particular Foursquare example has Prairie-style and Craftsman detailing. The porch that is historically associated with the house extended the full width of the house with wide eaves and brackets. The porch no longer has a hipped roof or porch, and thus a substantial amount of light enters the first story of the house from the south. It was replaced with a wood porch in 1971 and with no roof and horizontal siding and does not have a foundation. The owner wants to rebuild the porch using a hipped-roof profile. The existing deck and porch walls need repair and stabilization. Half of the porch would be enclosed and the other half (the east half) would be open. The details of the new open porch would differ from the original porch in that the balustrade would be constructed of wood and have an open design. Half of the porch would be enclosed, and used as a sunroom.
Staff has determined that the following standards are most pertinent to this application:
• The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
• All sites, structures and objects shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create a false sense of history or architecture are not allowed.
• Alterations or additions that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
• Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced wherever feasible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from other structures or objects.
• Additions or alterations to structures and objects shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible in massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Based upon the comments, analysis and findings of fact noted above, Planning Staff does not support the proposed design for the replacement porch. The proposed porch, because of its enclosure, is inconsistent with the porch that was originally on the house and that is closely associated with Foursquare dwellings. The enclosure of the porch would disrupt the symmetry of form and massing associated with Foursquare architecture, and would diminish the transitional space between the street and the home that is created by the full-length, open porches associated with this type and era of residential architecture in the Avenues. Staff recommends denial.
Mr. Lloyd asked what could be detected from the photo in the staff report and when was it taken.
Ms. Giraud indicated the photograph was taken in 1979, and the building permit indicated that a new porch was constructed in 1971.
Ms. Carl wanted to know whether the brackets on the second story, are they being added.
Ms. Giraud indicated that in the old photograph it was hard to see details.
Ms. Mickelsen asked for further questions for staff. Hearing none, she invited the applicants to come forward, to give their names and address.
Margaret and Bruce Landesman, 763 East Third Avenue came forward. Mrs. Landesman indicated they bought the home in 1977 and enjoy the light that comes into the home from the front windows. They could see that the stairs and porch were deteriorating and needed to be replaced. They thought it could be fixed for about $15,000.00. After preparing drawings, bids for the work were between fifty and seventy thousand dollars. It was not feasible to do at that price. One plan did show that it was something they liked and could afford.
Mr. Landesman commented that they are proposing to build a sunroom and a porch. He felt that they were not setting a precedent of enclosing the porch because no porch currently exists on the house. They do not want to put something on like the original porch as it would block their light and cost a lot of money. If no agreement can be reached that satisfies both parties, they will just repair the deck.
Ms. Ann Larsen, Residential Designer for the Landesman, indicated that since the brick on the house has been painted, she thought that it would not be profitable to build a brick porch and then paint it. It would not match the house anymore. That was why she considered going with some other design.
Ms. Mickelsen indicated it looks like they were adding to the basement as well.
Ms. Larsen indicated that it's just an entrance under the deck to a storage area. A lengthy discussion followed about whether the stairs should be centered or not.
Mr. Christensen indicated that in order to make a porch more sympathetic to what is seen in the original photographs, they are willing to consider what compromises they might be able to make to the design from what is shown.
Ms. Landesman indicated they would like it to be as close to the original as possible, but they don't want a roof as they aren't willing to give up the light.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if they wanted to do an addition onto the house and leave the rest of the porch off, would that comply with the standards.
Ms. Giraud indicated that it would be looked at as an addition and she was not aware of the Historic Landmark Commission approving any additions to the ·front of a house. She also indicated that painting brick is not regulated. She indicated that as long as the form and massing was going to be really similar to what was originally there, she could then make a positive recommendation. The applicants have submitted reused drawings from what was originally submitted and changed her recommendation to negative because of this enclosure. If the drawings included a full porch that would be acceptable.
After much discussion, Ms. Mickelsen asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to comment. Seeing none, she closed the public hearing and moved to the Executive Session.
Ms. Carl indicated it seems like they are not enclosing a porch, but adding a whole new room.
Mr. Simonsen thought that this was viewed as an addition because it’s an enclosed space not just a porch construction. He stated that clearly it doesn't meet the standard for the porch construction which is very clear that that is what it is. Based on findings for additions, this would not be very appropriate.
Ms. Giraud asked if they would like to reconsider it as an addition. She could then rewrite her Staff Report, address that and continue it to the November meeting.
Mr. Simonsen indicated that he didn't think that would be fair to the applicant to spend a lot more money to redesign it and possibly not have it pass.
Mr. Fitzsimmons didn't think they could come to a different conclusion.
Ms. Giraud said that she didn't know if they would come to a different conclusion, but it might make it cleaner to make findings.
Mr. Lloyd asked what type of criteria would it affect as an addition rather than replacing the porch.
Ms. Giraud indicated that the standards for the additions encourage additions. They include materials, roof line, fenestration and avoiding adding onto the front. The standards address roof-top additions and how to mitigate the effect on roof lines with additions that are placed above the house.
Ms. Coffey added that if this was done as an addition, the main issue would be to maintain the historic value of the house.
Motion:
Mr. Christensen moved that in case 026-05 that the Commission accept the Findings of Fact presented in the Staff Report and deny the request. The proposed porch addition to the front of this home although handsome, does not compare closely to what is originally known about the porch. The proposed design is unacceptable because one half of the structure would be enclosed and this is not consistent with the historical character of buildings of this type. Because the proposed plan would necessitate the removal of the main floor fenestration, it would require modification of the front elevation wall of the structure, and that those changes would be irreversible. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Fitzsimmons all voted “Aye”. Ms. Carl abstained, the motion passed.
Other Business
Wasatch Plunge Feasibility Study by Steve England, Architect, Salt Lake City Engineering Division. The Wasatch Plunge is a Landmark Site located at 840 North Beck Street.
The funds for this study were received from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money. The Wasatch Plunge was built in 1922 and there is a team selected to study the feasibility to renovate the building using it for a recreation center as specified in the Capitol Hill Community Master Plan.
The architectural team chosen for the project is VCBO & MJSA. Sean Onxon, Brent Tippets and Charles Shepherd who represent the firms were present to discuss the Historic Structure Report, and the feasibility report including options of adaptively re using the building. Steve England, of the Salt Lake City Engineering Division, is overseeing the project.
A copy of their findings is attached with these minutes.
Report of Planning Director
In the absence of Mr. Ikefuna, Planning Director, Ms. Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director, gave the report. She indicated that a recommendation from the City Attorney was emailed to all Commissioners regarding the appropriateness of the RDA going through the demolition process since they are a City entity. The City Attorney indicated that the RDA as a property owner has the right to that process. A question from the September meeting was raised as to whether the Commissioners could meet with the RDA Board and discuss some of the issues facing presentation especially regarding demolition. The HLC Chair is going to write a very specific letter as to what types of issues that they want to discuss with the RDA Board and then a meeting will be set up between the Historic Landmark Commission and the RDA Board members.
Ms. Mickelsen asked the other Commissioners for any ideas they would like to discuss in this process.
Ms. Coffey also talked about a letter from Mr. Zunguze, CD Director, referencing community workshops for board members. If anyone was interested, please let us know and we will sign them up.
Ms. Coffey also talked about a letter from Mr. Zunguze, CD Director, referencing community workshops for board members. If anyone was interested, please let us know and we will sign them up.
Mr. Lloyd indicated that these workshops are excellent and expressed concern that they all should try to attend.
The first phase at the Emigration Court project between 300 South and 400 South and 500 and 600 East, is under construction. Apart of the second phase was to build a multi-family structure on 300 South with a plaza in the middle of the block. Under the plaza they are wanting to build underground parking. They are waiting to get the plaza approved. The proposal for the plaza appears to meet the guidelines and staff feels that it can be approve administratively, but if the Commissioners want it to come to HLC for their approval, it could be done. Several Commissioners indicated they were okay with it being approved administratively.
Mr. Soren Simonsen moved to adjourn at 6:12p.m.