SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Pete Ashdown, Warren Lloyd, Paula Carl, Dave Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Elizabeth Giraud, Joel Paterson, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Pete Ashdown, Paula Carl, Dave
Fitzsimmons, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Warren Lloyd, and Soren Simonsen.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, CD Director; Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner; Janice Lew, Assoc. Planner; and Louise Harris, Senior Secretary.
The meeting was called to order by Vicki Mickelsen, Chair at 4:06 p.m. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item on the agenda would be followed in the order as written except one item under Other Business. She invited the audience to sign in and take any of the materials sitting on the table. She also ask that they turn off all cell phones and other electronic devices that would interrupt the meeting. 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 report of the Planning Director.
Alex Ikefuna was introduced by Louis Zunguze, CD Director. Mr. Zunguze indicated that for the past 7 months he has been wearing two hats as Planning Director and Community Development Director and was grateful that he has someone aboard that would take the responsibility of Planning Director. Mr. Ikefuna came from Savannah, GA where he was the Planning Director for the last 14 years. Mr. Zunguze indicated that Savannah was a very historic city and therefore Mr. Ikefuna has very good knowledge about issues related to historic preservation. Mr. Zunguze then proceeded to explain the procedure that brought Mr. Ikefuna to Salt Lake City and the interviewing process of over 50 applications. Mr. Ikefuna's competency with the issues we deal with and the creativity and leadership with respect from the Planning Staff was a huge consideration.
Mr. Zunguze indicated that money has been allocated by the City Council to begin to do certain things in respect to surveys that have been talked about and also the staff is requesting grant money to do a preservation plan, something that is needed to put into context preservation among all the other land use issues. He indicated he would continue to support the division from his position because now he has the direct ear of the Mayor as well as the City Council. He extended his best to one of our Commissioners running for City Council and wished him good luck. He stated he will be a good addition. Mr. Zunguze indicated he would be coming to our meetings from time to time to share matters of concern. He talked a little about the issues of people living in the historic districts not taking permits and respecting the work that our Commission does. He will be working with the Planning Staff to help push these issues through the City Council for consideration.
Ms. Mickelson thanked Mr. Zunguze and turned the time over to Mr. Ikefuna for his comments.
He thanked Mr. Zunguze for his background information and indicated he was glad to be here and he looks forward to working with the Commission. Ms. Michelson wished him the best and stated that he had total support of the Commission.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Simonsen moved to approve the minutes, it was seconded by Mr. Ashdown. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Christensen and Mr. Lloyd voted “Aye” and the motion passed. Mr. Fitzsimmons and Ms. Heid abstained.
Public Hearings
Case Number 020-05 at 1127 East 400 South by Erik and Nancy Jorgensen, requesting approval to replace an existing garage with a new detached garage including a covered patio in the rear yard. The property is located in the University Historic District.
Ms. Lew presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, findings of fact and staff's recommendation. The proposed structure would be 22 feet wide and 24 feet long with two parking bays, additional room for storage and a covered patio at the rear. The total area of the structure would be 748 square feet. The primary wall material will be stucco. The applicant proposes vinyl sliding windows, wood paneled garage doors and aluminum soffit and fascia. The 4:12 gabled roof, that rises to approximately 13 feet at the peak, will be covered with asphalt shingles to match the house. A copy of the Staff Report is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Mickelsen asked about the placement of this garage in respect to the existing one. Ms. Lew replied that it probably would be better to ask the applicants. The site plans don't show the existing garage. She then asked the applicants to come forward and introduce themselves and give their address. Ms. Jorgensen and her contractor, Hassan Nagahi introduced themselves and did not have anything further to add to the staff report.
Mr. Lloyd again asked about the placement of the garage.
Mr. Nagahi indicated it was about 10 feet south of the new garage closer to the house. The placement would be further away from the house to the north in order to get two cars in front of the garage and have room to back up.
Mr. Nagahi also indicated the pad would make plenty of room to back out.
Mr. Lloyd asked if the garage doors would be overhead or open out.
Mr. Nagahi replied they would open out and are not automatic.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Ashdown wanted to know the color of the stucco. The reply was off-white.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there was anyone from the audience wishing to comment. Hearing none she closed the public hearing and moved into the Executive Session. She stated the Chair would entertain a motion if there are no further questions.
Motion:
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to accept the recommendations of staff and approve the project with the final details delegated to staff, if there are any, and that approval is for design only. This project must meet all other applicable City requirements. Mr. Ashdown seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Lloyd voted “Aye”. There were none opposed. The motion passed.
Case Number 021-05 at 1077 East Second Avenue by Fred and Primadon Mcdonnell, represented by Architect Rod Mortensen. requesting approval to raise the height of the roof for the attic addition in a home in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented the Staff Report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and staff's recommendation. The applicants are proposing a second story addition, increasing the existing attic space from 300 square feet to 946 square feet to accommodate a master bedroom suite, bathroom, and home office. The proposed second-story addition would raise the ridgeline of the existing roof from 18'-8” to 23'-5” and the roof pitch from 6:12” pitch to a 9:12” slope. The applicant filed an application for a Routine and Uncontested approval for a back yard encroachment and obtained the required signatures of the abutting property owners. The Planning Division Staff approved the Routine and Uncontested application on August 19, 2005, based upon the fact that the addition follows the existing building line and that the addition is compatible with the existing structure. Ms. Giraud recommended approval. A copy of the Staff Report is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Mickelsen asked about the type of material.
Ms. Giraud wasn't sure but thought it was wood or vinyl. She suggested asking the architect.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked about the windows in the front of the house and if any of them were to be changed.
Ms. Giraud did not think so.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the brick would be disturbed. Ms. Giraud replied that it would not.
Ms. Mickelsen asked the applicant to come forward and to give their name and address. Rod Mortensen, architect of 778 West 3800 South, Bountiful came forward. He indicated the rear porch is in poor condition. It is of wood board and batten built in the 1950's or 1940's. They want to replace it with wood and have not yet decided if it will be cedar shingles, wood siding or Hardiboard. The front gable pitch is not being changed in the front of the house. The only change you will see is the second gable which is in the middle of the house. It will be higher. The perception is if you look at the left elevation towards the back third of the house, you will not see any differences and from the street it will almost be imperceptible.
Mr. Lloyd asked if it was the applicants intent to save the front gable or reconstruct it.
Mr. Mortensen said that they are thinking they will have to reconstruct. It will depend on the contractor.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked whether the window and the porch are being saved.
Mr. Mortensen indicated that the owner would like to possibly do some window replacement or window rehabilitation. He has not gotten bids yet. The new windows will be vinyl or wood, but if he is to do the other windows, he would suggest to do a window rehabilitation. They are better windows. He would like to have double pane. Mr. Lloyd asked what was proposed.
Mr. Mortensen said that anything in the rebuild is new and everything else in the proposal would remain as is.
Ms. Mickelsen asked Ms. Giraud if our Design Guidelines had any guidance on replacing the original glass.
Ms. Giraud indicated that there was none, but there is a lot on windows and stated that there are things to consider. They look at all the variables. Are they replacing only the sash, keeping the configuration, can they match the dimension carefully, what colors are they going to use, etc. They do allow some vinyl replacement administratively even if they are on the front.
Mr. Mortensen indicated they want to match the existing windows in profile and character.
The vinyl matches well and from a distance, the only thing not matching is the bottom style. When you look at the movable parts of the windows, you can't get a larger bottom style on vinyl. They aren't going to get tax credits with the State, so they don't have to match.
Mr. Lloyd asked what type of roofing n1aterial they were using.
Mr. Mortensen indicated architectural asphalt shingles in a cedar shingle type of look.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments. Since there were none, they moved to the Executive Session. She felt that there were a lot of decisions left up to the staff that needed to be taken into account with the motion.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that in Case Number 021-05, based on the Findings of Fact by staff and the presentation by the applicant, that the Commission approve this case with the provision that final decisions on siding material for the gable ends, the rebuild of the rear addition and vinyl materials of the windows be delegated to staff based on the Design Guidelines for the Historic Landmarks Commission. Ms. Giraud interjected that on the upper story they are putting cedar shingles to match the existing. The motion is just on the rebuild area and window materials. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Simonsen all voted “Aye”. There were none opposed. The motion passed.
Case Number 022-05 at 230 South 500 West. a presentation by Korral Broschinsky of Preservation Document Resources. to solicit comments for listing the “ZCMI General Warehouse” on the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Ashdown indicated he was a member of Art Space and did not feel comfortable being involved with the discussion. Mr. Fitzsimmons indicated that one of the architects, Kevin Zandberg is a client of his company. It was discussed that because this is only an item for discussion and recommendation, no vote would be needed and their involvement shouldn't be an issue. Mr. Simonsen mentioned that he did have an issue with them being part of the discussion.
Ms. Mickelsen turned the time over to Korral Broschinsky, the consultant hired to prepare the nominations and to do a slide presentation at this time and after the presentation, a discussion followed. A copy of the findings is filed with the minutes.
Mr. Lloyd asked how the warehouse fit in with current warehouse districts.
Ms. Giraud replied that there isn't a local warehouse district. The national warehouse district does not include this building.
Ms. Broschinsky indicated the area was a part of a n1ultiple resource area, not considered a district with definable boundaries, but the multiple resource looks at warehouses and their attributes. The survey showed how many interior rail spurs these types of buildings had and that is how they got the numbers.
Ms. Mickelsen asked does the nomination take into account the use the warehouse would be.
Ms. Broschinksy indicated that it did not and the nomination can be revised to show current usage. The National Register does allow work in progress in order to be nominated. It doesn't have to be a finished product.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the nomination laid out what the defining characteristics were other than uniqueness.
Ms. Broschinsky replied that the most important characteristics of this building would be the interior rail spur.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if our comments were relative to the registration or to be critical of the design work.
Ms. Giraud indicated that they were relative to the nomination.
Mr. Simonsen said the nomination was based on its present state and presumably with tax credit purposes with the adaptive reuse.
Ms. Giraud suggested that a motion was needed and to forward either a negative or positive recommendation to the Board of State History.
Ms. Carl moved that the Commission forward a positive recommendation. Mr. Simonsen seconded. Mr. Simonsen, Ms. Carl, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid all voted “Aye”. There were none opposed. The motion passed.
Ms. Mickelsen indicated that that concludes all the cases on the agenda and the
Commission would move on to other business.
OTHER BUSINESS
A slide presentation on the reconnaissance level historic survey of the Yalecrest neighborhood was presented by Bee Lufkin a consultant. A total of 1,487 properties were surveyed. A copy of her report is filed with the minutes.
Ms. Giraud indicated that no action is needed. This is just information to keep the Commission informed on the survey.
Ms. Mickelsen asked what would be the next step if this area were to become a National Historic District and who would be taking it through that process.
Ms. Giraud indicated that the survey was paid for by our certified government funds, which is money that comes from the National Park Service through SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) to us. We apply for a CLG Grant every other year. Our next deadline will be February 2006. The next step would be to apply for money to hire a consultant to prepare a national register nomination for this project.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the next step were up to the Commission to find the money to fund a consultant.
Ms. Giraud indicated yes an application is being prepared to apply for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money for the Preservation Plan.
Ms. Coffey indicated that the Commission needs to make a recommendation or motion of support so a letter can be inserted with the application relating to the CDBG request.
Mr. Simonsen moved to endorse the grant request for the CDBG application for the Preservation Plan and Reconnaissance Survey of the Avenue 1-listoric District. Ms. Carl seconded. Ms. Heid, Ms. Carl, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Fitzsimmons all voted “Aye”. There were none opposed. The motion passed.
Ms. Giraud has asked Ms. Mickelsen to draft the letter and Ms. Mickelsen asked that if anyone has any ideas to please get them to her. She would appreciate any comments.
Mr. Ikefuna talked about the responsibility of the staff and the Commission working closely with the consultant if the CDBG funding becomes available.
Ms. Heid indicated that the consultant hired to help with the Design Guidelines document owned that document. It is copy written in his name. She would like to see that if a consultant was hired to produce a product, then the City should own that product.
Ms. Giraud replied that it was that way and written in a format that changes couldn't be made.
Ms. Coffey indicated that City ownership of a consultant funded project is how most other things are done. It is spelled out in the contract. The consultants do the background work. Staff oversees their work.
The Historic Landmarks Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council have the review on what is finally adopted. The consultant is doing all the work but we are getting all the guidance. We need to let them know that this is our document and we have to be able to work with it. It has to be approved by the City Council.
Ms. Mickelsen asked that we move on to the RDA Economic Hardship Review presentation of Duplex at 748-750 North 300 West.
This discussion relates to selecting a member for the Economic Review Panel.
Mr. Simonsen asked to be excused as he had another commitment. There still being a quorum present, he left the meeting.
Ms. Giraud contacted Rob Fetzer who she felt would represent the HLC well as a member of the Economic Hardship Review Panel. He indicated that he would be pleased to be an HLC representative. His specialty is proforma and debt restructuring, equity financing and he is good with numbers. She felt that he would be well qualified. Mr. Ashdown raised concern with the RDA and is willing to attend one of their meetings to speak during the public portion and speak about the displeasure over them asking for this economic hardship.
Ms. Coffey indicated she would find out if that is appropriate or not and would get back with Mr. Ashdown.
Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved to approve Mr. Rob Fetzer as the representative for the Economic Hardship Review Panel. Mr. Lloyd second. Mr. Ashdown, Ms. Carl, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, and Mr. Lloyd. voted “Aye”. There were none opposed. The motion passed.
Ms. Giraud ask for comments from the Commission regarding the information provided in their packets on the Economic Hardship. She will need the information within the next few weeks. Along with this, she will set up a tour to see the apartments.
Mr. Paterson talked about the enforcement process in the historic districts. He indicated that people work without approved plans either through administrative approval or through Landmarks Commission and then make improvements that are not consistence with the plans. Currently the penalties available are stop work orders (complaint received from neighbors), charge a double fee on the building permit, or give a civil fine. The City is looking for other alternatives like removing a contractors license through the State and/or increasing the fine. Reports will be gathered and information put together that will be brought back to the Commission for their support and ideas.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked how do they tell the difference between whether the homeowner violated the rules or the contractor.
Mr. Paterson indicated that usually the contractors take out the permit and then charge the homeowner the fee. If he does not get the permit then the homeowner is in fault.
As there was no other business to be brought before the Commission, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Ashdown moved to adjourn at 6:47 p.m.