SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Robert Young, William T. Wright, and Elizabeth Giraud.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Dina Blaes, Maren Jeppsen, Rob McFarland, and Sarah Miller were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Susan Deal. Ms. Deal announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Deal asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the August 19, 1998 meeting, as amended. It was seconded by Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller were not present. The motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS
Case No. 013-98, at 175 No. "0" Street, by Alex Steckel, requesting approval for the new construction of a single-family home.
Mr. Knight 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 of this meeting. Ms. Deal inquired about the proposed garage which appeared minutes of this meeting. Ms. Deal inquired about the proposed garage which appeared on the site plan. Mr. Knight said that it was noted in the staff report that the two-car garage at the northwest corner of the lot was approved administratively early in the course of this case and is currently under construction. Mr. Knight circulated drawings of the proposed garage. Ms. Deal pointed out that she believed that there was a 16- foot grade change that exceeded the allowable limit as required by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Parvaz spoke of the asymmetrical form of the gable roof. Mr. Knight said that an offset gable roof form was less common than the regular triangular gable, but that there were examples of the roof form in the district. Mr. Wright said that the form emulated the existing structure.
The applicant, Mr. Alex Steckel, was present. He stated that the reason why he offset the gable was to reduce the height of the proposed structure. Mr. Steckel added that the roof pitch would be 7112 to match the garage under construction. He said that he believed the height would be 16 feet above grade to the peak, rather than 22 feet which was noted in the staff report, and10 feet below grade. Mr. Nelson said that he used the same method that the zoning requires, which is measuring from the base to midpoint of the ridge.
Mr. Steckel passed around catalogs which contained samples of the proposed windows and door. He said that the windows would be wood. Mr. Steckel added that the large door at the lower elevation would be a wood clad metal door, and the remaining doors would be fir.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
Commission:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by inquiring about the material in the gable end. Mr. Steckel said that he planned to use shingles or continue with the wood siding.
• Ms. Deal said that the plans indicated that either wood siding or stucco would be used on the exterior of the proposed structure. Mr. Steckel said that stucco would not be used, that he would use wood lap siding on the exterior wall section.
• Mr. Parvaz asked about the retaining wall. Mr. Steckel said that there would be a concrete retaining wall around the sunken court yard. He pointed out that the south elevation wall would be formed with cedar wood incorporated into the cement, and the opposing walls would be exposed aggregate.
• Mr. Nelson inquired about the railing around the sunken court yard area. Mr. Steckel said that there would be a wood fence around it. Ms. Deal suggested that the staff should look at the final drawings for the fencing.
Ms. Deal opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Deal closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
A discussion developed regarding the proposed plans and the materials. Mr. Littig pointed out that the catalogs which the applicant provided showed samples of the proposed doors and windows that would be used in the project.
Ms. Deal pointed out that the staff report included findings with which the Commission members had to support or not support. Mr. Knight said that it states in Chapter 21A.34.020(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, the Historic Landmark Commission, 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 and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and form:
a. Height and width;
b. Proportion of principal facades;
c. Roof shape; and
d. Scale of a structure.
Staff's finding: The proposed building is compatible in height, width, and scale with other buildings on the street and in the district. The proportion of principal facades and the roof shape are also compatible with the surrounding buildings and the district.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staff's finding.
2. Composition of principal facades:
a. Proportion of openings;
b. Rhythm of solids to voids in facades;
c. Rhythm of entrance porch and other projections; and d. Relationship of materials.
Staff's finding: The proportion of openings, the rhythm of solids to voids in facades, and the rhythm of the entrance porch on the proposed design are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding buildings. Further information about the windows and doors to be used is needed. Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staff's finding, with the exception that illustrated examples were presented on the windows and doors in the catalogs provided by the applicant.
3. Relationship to Street:
a. Walls of continuity;
b. Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets;
c. Directional expression of principal elevation; and d. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements.
Staffs finding: The relationship of the building to “O” Street with respect to walls of continuity, rhythm of spaces and structures on the street, and directional expression of the principal elevation is consistent with the district. Staff is not aware of streetscape and pedestrian improvements that need to be made.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
4. Subdivision of Lots. Any subdivision of lots will be compatible with the character of the historic district.
Staffs finding: This standard is not applicable to this application. The applicant will keep this lot as one parcel.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the
members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
Mr. Littig moved to approve Case No. 013-98, based on the staff's findings of fact, as presented in the staff report, with the exception that the details of the windows and doors, as illustrated in the catalogs provided by the applicant, is acceptable. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
A short discussion followed. The motion was amended.
Mr. Littig moved to approve Case No. 013-98, based on the staff's findings of fact, as presented in the staff report, with the exception that the details of the windows and doors, as illustrated in the catalogs provided by the applicant, is acceptable. Further, that the applicant is to provide more information and details regarding the railing around the sunken court yard area and present it to staff for approval. The second still stood by Mr. Young. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller were not present. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 023-98, at 734 East 200 South. by Nancy Saxton and Jan Bartlett. represented by Pam Wells. architect. requesting to construct a rear addition of the James Freeze House.
Mr. Gordon announced that he wanted to state for the record that he recently had a brief conversation with the historical preservation consultant working with the applicants on this project.
• 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 of this meeting. Mr. Young asked if soil tests had been done to determine the bearing capacity so the construction project would not cause a further settlement in the original building on the property. Ms. Giraud said that question would have to be answered by the architect.
The applicants, Ms. Nancy Saxton and Mr. Jan Bartlett, as well as their representative, Ms. Pam Wells, were present. Ms. Wells said that the soil testing had been completed and is currently being evaluated so the results are not known. She said that she understood the concern, however, and believed that the basement area would have the greatest impact rather than the main or the second floor.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Mr. Young led the discussion by inquiring further into the soil tests. He asked if the soil tests would explore the stability of the existing building as the soil is removed and the foundation is created. Ms. Wells said that the basic structural plan provides the bearing beyond the east and west walls to reduce the weight on the north wall of the addition.
• Mr. Parvaz asked about the roof line. Ms. Wells said that it would be a truncated roof with the pitch matching the original building. He asked if there would be mechanical units on the roof. Ms. Wells said that the mechanical units would be located in the crawl space and not on top of the roof. Ms. Wells pointed out that the entire building would be re-roofed, so the roofing material will be the same. Ms. Saxton said that re-roofing would not be easy because of the contours and peaks in the roof on the existing building.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the two fences on the property. Ms. Saxton said that the wooden fence on the west side belonged to the adjacent property, the Stansbury Apartments. She said that the metal wire fence on the east side would be removed. Mr. Young pointed out that traditionally the wales of the fence face the side of the property owner, but the wales of the fence on this property face the applicant's side, so the fence was constructed backwards.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the basement area. Ms. Wells said that because of the nature of the business, there would be required a considerable amount of storage space to store alternative furniture, such as tables and chairs. She added that the basement area would provide that needed space. Ms. Wells also said that the major portion of the basement in the proposed addition would house the mechanical and electrical systems.
Mr. Parvaz asked if the existing cherry tree would be maintained. Mr. Bartlett said that it will be unless it interferes with the construction of the new addition. Mr. Bartlett stated that they wanted to keep as many trees as possible, but if some had to be removed, other trees would be planted. Mr. Parvaz said that he hoped most of the trees would remain. Mr. Young pointed out that the root systems of the trees could be damaged by the construction equipment compressing the soil, so he cautioned the applicants to protect the root systems by blocking off the traffic over those areas during construction.
• Ms. Deal inquired if the applicant would be filling in door and window openings in the existing structure and how that would be done. Ms. Wells said that a fabricated metal jam planned to be used. Ms. Deal commented that the applicants should keep in mind that in one of the standards in the City's zoning ordinance, it states that additions shall be done in such a manner that if such additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. She suggested filling the openings with acoustical insulation material and avoid masonry. There was some discussion regarding the interior walls interfacing with the elevator shaft.
Ms. Deal inquired about the windows in the addition and if there would be any window work in the main house. Ms. Saxton said that the windows in the existing structure would be restored and the new ones would be double-hung wood windows. Ms. Saxton said that awning windows would be installed in the proposed rest rooms.
• Mr. Young asked what kind of food preparation would take place in the kitchen. Ms. Saxton said that they plan for a full commercial kitchen for the functionality of food preparation, in general, because the County Health Department is very strict on the conditions of commercial kitchens. However, Ms. Saxton said that the meals would be prepared off site by a caterer, so the only food preparation in the kitchen would be serving or salads for light lunches. Mr. Young expressed his concern about the collection of steam being generated which would have to be exhausted through the wall. Ms. Saxton said that there was a chimney that could be used for exhaust so no additional holes would be punched through the wall. Mr. Young said that the applicants should be aware that moisture condenses which would collect and may cause damage. He suggested that the consultants deal with that issue.
Ms. Saxton circulated some photographs of examples of additions in the historic district or to historic buildings. She pointed out that all of the examples in the photographs would be visible from the street. Ms. Saxton said that they have the luxury of a deep lot so the addition could be built in the back and not be seen from the street. A discussion took place that not all of the examples in the photographs were approved by the full Historic Landmark Commission and the fact that the Historic Landmark Commission's guidelines were not relaxed to allow some of the additions. It was mentioned that there were enforcement proceedings on some of the properties.
Ms. Deal opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Deal closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Deal consulted with the members to procure a consensus whether or not the Commission supported the staff’s findings. Ms. Giraud said that in Section 21A.34.020(G), of the City's zoning ordinance, it states: In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a Landmark Commission site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City.
Ms. Giraud cited the following five standards and staff’s findings that were included in the staff report:
1. A properly shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;
Staffs finding: The applicants have been approved for a conditional use to convert the James Freeze House into a reception center. They qualified for the conditional use process under the economic hardship provision of the zoning ordinance (Section 21A.24.020(S).) The main portion of the house will remain in its original state on the exterior; the 11oor plan will be altered for the new use. The driveway will be widened and parking will be provided behind the house. The trees in front of the bungalow behind the house will be removed for parking; the large trees on the property, including the orchard in the southeast corner, will be retained. The staff finds that the applicants comply with this standard.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
2. The historic character of a properly shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a properly shall be avoided;
Staffs finding: Minimal change is proposed for the main structure of the James Freeze home. The demolition of the frame back room would not detract from the overall physical integrity of the house. The applicant meets this standard.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
3. 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;
Staffs finding: The new addition will be larger than the existing ell and will be slightly recessed from the masonry wall. It is compatible in style and materials but is not trying to create a false sense of what might have been constructed in 1892. The applicant meets this standard.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment;
Staffs finding: The only original or historical fabric that will be lost is the frame ell. The proposed addition will be compatible with the character of the property and neighborhood. Although it will be larger than the existing ell it will be the same material (wood clapboard) that has been historically used for additions and ells. The scale is compatible with the house. The applicant meets this standard Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
9. 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;
Staffs finding: If the proposed addition were removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The new work will differentiate from the old by the use of a different material and by the "stepping in" of the east and west wall planes.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: It was a consensus that the members
of the Commission agreed with the staffs finding.
Mr. Young moved to approve Case No. 023-98 as recommended by staff's findings of fact and the applicant be permitted to construct the project as shown on the submitted plans. It was seconded by Mr. Gordon. Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal, as Acting Chair, did not vote. Ms. Blaes, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Deal asked for a motion to adjourn.
It was moved by Mr. Young to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:00P.M.