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 Susan Deal, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, and Elizabeth Egleston.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were, Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, Robert Pett, Heidi Swinton, and Dina Williams. Burke Cartwright and Dave Svikhart were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston and Lisa Miller.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Robert Pett. Mr. Pett announced that each case will be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He stated that after hearing comments from the applicant and the commission, the applicant will be excused and at that time the meeting will be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting will be closed and the commission will go into executive session to make a decision based on the information presented. Mr. Pett said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeal's process is listed on the back of the agenda.
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 cases 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. Miya moved to approve the minutes of May 1, 1996. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Ms. Swinton, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS CASE
Case No. 006-96, at 681 No. West Capitol Street. by Juan and Penelope Gonzalez, represented by Roger vanFrank and Peter Moyes, requesting final approval for the construction of a new single family home.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She briefly spoke about the alterations to the original site plans, such as the elimination of the proposed prefabricated vinyl solarium which was replaced with a unit that would integrate more into the design of the house.
Both, Mr. Roger vanFrank and Mr. Peter Moyes, representing the applicant, were present. Mr. vanFrank explained that some of the site plans had not been revised due to his hospital stay. When Ms. Egleston asked, Mr. vanFrank explained the gargoyle gallery which would appear on the wall of the garage. He said that some selected pieces from a magnificent gallery of ancient Tuscan and gothic gargoyles had been found and would be placed on that wall.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Miya led the discussion by stating that the changes in the solarium would be a vast improvement over the original plans for the vinyl unit. He also inquired about the concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall under the proposed solarium that was depicted on the drawing of the west elevation. Mr. vanFrank addressed that issue, then pointed out that the drawings for the west elevation had not been changed. Mr. vanFrank noted that the materials on the west elevation would be the same as the east and south elevations.
• Mr. Pett commented about the change from the proposed T-111 siding on the exterior to a vertical tongue and groove siding. Mr. Pett inquired further into the construction of the proposed solarium. Mr. vanFrank indicated that the solarium would be constructed out of a mill finished metal framing which would be infilled with clear glazed glass.
• Ms. Deal pointed out that the altered plans depicted the color and texture of glazed tile or the diagonal pattern of the Dutch lap shingles on the horizontal banding element around the exterior of the house. Mr. vanFrank expressed a preference for the glazed tiles which he had specially designed and had made. He added that he thought the tiles would be an improvement, but the applicant had chosen the Dutch lap shingles. Ms. Deal inquired about the Spandrel panels that was drawn on the plans. Mr. vanFrank explained that the Spandrel panels were ranging from a 2"x4" to a 2"x6" stud which would change the surface level of the synthetic stucco for the bulk of the exterior walls. He said that a 6" step panel was proposed to be used between and over the windows. Ms. Deal also asked about the railing that was shown on the plans. Mr. vanFrank said that the handrail would be constructed out of wood and metal and the balusters would be wrought iron.
Mr. Pett opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests to address the commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A short discussion to ok place regarding the alterations to the original plans and the integrity of the design.
Mr. Miya moved to approve Case No. 006-96, as presented, because the site plans met the established criteria by the commission; that the design was consistent; and based on the findings of fact set forth in the staff report. It was seconded by Mr. Morgan. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 007-96. at 334 No. Quince Street. by Gary Bliss. represented by Craig Wall. requesting approval to construct a new single family dwelling.
Ms. Miller presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She asked that an attempt be made to keep the subdivision issues separate from the design review of the proposed single family home. There was a short discussion regarding the issue of gravel in the driveway. Ms. Miller circulated photo graphs of the existing retaining wall in front of the property.
Both the applicant, Mr. Gary Bliss, and his representative, Mr. Craig Wall, were present. Mr. Wall indicated that the applicant had a meeting with the neighbors trying to develop a workable solution for the property site. He indicated that the driveway access may be resolved so the property could be accessed off Apricot Avenue.
Mr. Wall stated if that access was not possible, then the alternative plan would be to utilize the long driveway off Quince Street. He said that the grading plan would have to be revised, to meet the requirements of the City's Department of Transportation. Mr. Wall said that the alternative plan would also affect the retaining wall along that driveway. He added that the applicant had committed to replace the trees along that driveway strip.
Mr. Bliss continued to discuss the possibility of utilizing the alleyway off Apricot Avenue. However, he continued by saying that there was a title gap in the ownership records. Mr. Bliss described the other properties that had a legal access of the alleyway. He added that by accessing his property off that alleyway would solve some major problems for him.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Hatch led the discussion by saying that the revisions that have been made to the elevations were good. She further inquired about the front porch. Mr. Wall said that he modified the house plans as much as he could to allow for a small front porch, from the suggestions made by members at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting. The discussion turned to other suggested changes that were offered at the subcommittee meeting regarding the massing of the proposed structure.
• Mr. Miya inquired about the retaining wall that would be constructed on the driveway access off Quince Street. Mr. Wall said that the highest point would be 6 1/2 feet and the lowest point would be 3 feet. He said the wall would be stepped to match the grade of the land and driveway. Mr. Wall explained the proposed landscaping plans on both sides of the retaining wall and driveway that were depicted on the site drawings.
• Mr. Pett asked if the new plans were available showing that grade change. Mr. Wall said that those plans were not yet completed. Mr. Pett inquired if the old retaining wall on the front property line on Quince Street would be damaged during the construction process. Mr. Wall said that it would not be disturbed but indicated that the applicant planned to repair any existing damages and that the wall would be maintained.
• Mr. Cooper said that eventually that driveway would have to be oiled, or paved with asphalt, concrete or some other hard surface material, otherwise all the gravel would end up on Quince Street due to the grade of the land. Some others agreed. Mr. Wall assured the commission that it was not the desire of the applicant to use gravel that he would rather use some kind of pavement. There was some discussion regarding other materials that could be used.
• Ms. Deal further inquired into the slope of the grade of the long driveway off Quince Street. Mr. Wall explained that the drawings were being revised which would show a full grading plan and the dimensions of the retaining wall. He added that only the cross section of the proposed retaining wall was included in the staff report.
• Mr. Morgan said that he agreed with most of the issues that had been discussed. He pointed out that the commission could not render a decision on the design of the proposed single family residence until the subdivision issues were resolved. Mr. Morgan expressed the need to examine both site plans if two single family dwellings were constructed to review the relationship to one another. He said that if the property was subdivided, each site would be different, indicating that one would become a flag lot with no frontage on a public right-of-way, and the other site in front of it. Mr. Morgan also spoke of the issues that surround a shared driveway.
Mr. Pett opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Ms. Marie Dalgleish, who resides at 135 E. Apricot Avenue, discussed the ownership of the alley off Apricot Avenue. By illustrating on a briefing board, she pointed out that she owned the front portion of the subject alleyway off Apricot Avenue. She indicated that when she checked with various City departments, it was expressed to her that the accessing of the alleyway was a private matter between the adjacent property owners and the owners of the alleyway, because the City did not recognize anyone's right to use the alley other than with whom she had an agreement. She spoke of the right-of-way she had given to another home, as well as to a nine-unit apartment complex. Ms. Dalgleish stated that she thought that there was enough traffic in the alleyway and would not give a consent to the applicant to use her private property to gain access to the alley off Apricot Avenue.
• Mr. Joseph Pitti, who resides at 325 No. Quince Street, said that he would prefer only one home and one lot on the subject property site. He pointed out that there were many deep lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Pitti said that he foresaw many problems surrounding the possibility of the lot being subdivided and recognized the need for the commission to review two separate site plans. Mr. Pitti knew of several lots in the Capitol Hill area that had been subdivided, but added that there was no need to continue to make the same mistakes. Mr. Pitti stated that he was also opposed to the possibility of using gravel on the driveway rather than a hard surface material. He talked about the high density population in the area and that parking was very limited on the street. Mr. Pitti explained the difficulties of accessing his driveway which was also very steep and noted that the driveway on the subject property site would be much steeper.
• Ms. Regina Peery, who resides at 330 No. Quince Street, spoke of her concern about the trees that were cut down and the potential fire damage on that property because of the remaining debris. She echoed Mr. Pitti's comments about the problems created by the lack of parking on the street. Ms. Peery raised the question of the safety issues, and the snow removal hazards if the driveway was layered with gravel.
• Ms. Carolyn Andree, who resides at 326 No. Quince Street, expressed her concerns about the proposed shared driveway off Quince Street if the subject property was divided. She pointed out that shared driveways in the neighborhood were not uncommon and reiterated the extreme parking situation caused by properties that have no off street parking. She further described the difficulties of the steep icy streets in the wintertime.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A lengthy discussion to ok place. Ms. Hatch said that she thought it was unfortunate that the discussion with the Planning Director was delayed regarding the Historic Landmark Commission's role in the subdivision process of properties lying within the boundaries of Historic districts. She added that she thought the commission should be involved in that process because of the impact that procedure would have on design review. Ms. Deal promoted the idea of the commission member's attendance at the Planning Commission meeting in mid June of 1996, where the decision for the request to subdivide the subject property will be made.
Ms. Deal also expressed her concerns about the scale and massing of the proposed structure, if the property was not subdivided. She said that she thought that if the applicant used the maximum allowable setbacks for the construction of a single family dwelling, the resulting structure would be completely out of the scale with the architecture of the other properties in the neighborhood.
Mr. Cooper stated that he had a problem with several design matters pertaining to the proposed house, such as the small front porch, the incongruities of the scale and massing, the window placement, the inconsistencies of the style philosophy for each elevation, the large stuccoed flat exterior wall surface, the return of the cornice would be too flat, as well as the lack of components to make the design interesting. Some others agreed.
The following issues were explored by the commission members: the process for subdividing properties in Historic districts; flag lots in the Capitol Hill area where the front facades of both residences was seen from the main road; accessing the subject property; problems surrounding shared driveways; the lack of details and information; the changes that could occur in the landscaping plan; more than one curb cut for the property would not be favored by the commission; and the incompatibility of the massing and scale.
• Mr. Morgan moved to deny the application for Case No. 007-96 until the resolution of the subdivision issues in the Planning Commission. Further, if the subdivision of the property is approved, then the proposed plans for the house and the driveway be contingent upon the review of a second house.
The question rose whether or not the commission wanted to deny the application or just table it. Mr. Morgan amended the motion.
Mr. Morgan moved to table the application for Case No. 007-96 with the condition that the designs be integrated between the two lots and the issues of the common driveway be thoroughly settled. Also, moved to send a recommendation to the Planning Commission to deny the subdivision of this property, based on the inadequate information regarding parking and the integration of the two lots. It was seconded by Ms. Deal.
A lengthy discussion to ok place. The commission members reiterated circumstances that surrounded the issues that were mentioned above.
When questions Still were raised, regarding the motion, Ms. Williams reminded. the commission that a conceptual approval for a single family dwelling on a single property site had already been rendered by this commission, and that approval had nothing to do with the subdivision issues. The subject of the subdivision process was again discussed, and Ms. Miller expressed her assurance that the Planning Director was willing to discuss these matters with the commission.
Mr. Cooper urged that the wording of the motion needed to be very clear and concise and that he was uncomfortable with the way the motion had been stated. Mr. Pett suggested that a recommendation to the Planning Commission could be made in a separate motion.
The discussion continued because not all members disagreed on the possible subdivision of the subject property. The importance of the commission members supporting each other, was pointed out, if any member attends the future Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Morgan withdrew his motion.
Mr. Morgan moved to table the application for Case No. 007-96, pending the resolution of the subdivision application before the Planning Commission. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.
NEW CASES
Case No. 008-96. at 688 No. Wall Street. by Richard Bullock. represented by Bob Gagne of Quality Building Solutions. requesting approval to construct a rear two story addition.
Ms. Miller presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Both the applicant, Mr. Richard Bullock, and his representative, Mr. Bob Gagne, were present. Mr. Gagne stated that he had spoken to Mr. Allen Roberts, AIA, of Cooper Roberts Architects, who regretfully could not be in attendance at this meeting. Mr. Roberts requested that the following letter be read into the record of this meeting. Mr. Gagne read the following letter:
"I am writing in support of the proposals submitted by Bob Gagne in behalf of Richard Bullock who is requesting approval to construct a rear addition to his house at 688 No. Wall Street. Because of scheduling conflicts, I am unable to attend your meeting personally. I request however that this statement be read during the meeting of May 15, 1996. The rear yard and driveway to my house at 670 North 200 West faces the Bullock residence. As both a 22 year resident of the area and an historical architect, who has completed several projects in the neighborhood, I am well acquainted with the subject building, as well as appropriate approaches to adding to historical buildings. After carefully evaluating the owner's programmatic needs the peculiarities of the site and the character of the Historic house, I am convinced that the design proposed by Mr. Gagne is compatible in the way in which houses were added to historically in the Capitol Hill area. This small apex of a gable and sitting on the west ridge is a typical feature of historical additions. As evident in the addition to the Draper house directly to the south. Adding a gable to a poor quality earlier addition in the middle of the south elevation is also a compatible way of improving a currently incompatible element. Also the addition to the rear will be not visible to any public vantage point. This is where most of the needed new square footage will be built. This fact, along with the limitations imposed by the hill and the lack of visibility of the rear addition, indicate that considerable design latitude should be given for this rear part of the project. On a volunteer basis I have offered a few suggestions as to how the contract may improve this design to increase its compatibility and functionality. He has implemented these requests. In my view, the current proposal meets the intent of the City's Design Guidelines for projects of this type. I believe that it would be unfair to the owner and not in the neighborhood's best interest to attempt to force the owner to accept other solutions that are contrary to the owner's space needs, budgets, site characteristics, and nearby historical architecture. Thank you for reading this memo into the records. Allen Roberts, AIA."
Mr. Cooper clarified, for the record, that Mr. Robert's statements, which he made in his letter, were Mr. Robert's opinion only and did not represent the opinion of the firm of Cooper Roberts Architects.
Mr. Gagne responded to the findings in the staff report by reading Section 17-1.7 (b) of Title 21 of the Salt Lake City Code, and reported that the general standards in this section pertained to the application. Mr. Gagne voiced his opinion by stating that he was in to tall agreement with the meaning of that section. He added that the intent of
this design was not to destroy the historical integrity of this structure, but the goal was
to create a more usable living space, using the same practices that were employed in this area historically. Mr. Gagne referred to the photo graph of the house next door to the property site at 680 No. Wall Street, which was included in the staff report.
Mr. Gagne continued by saying that the addition of the gable above the main ridge of this cross-wing home would not change the Historic appearance of the home. He said that because these homes were built up against the side of the hill to the east, the requested application was the method used to add an addition to the home. Mr. Gagne expressed his concerns that the construction of a split-level addition, and the expense
of excavation and the reinforced concrete to hold the hillside that would occur for the expanded space.
Mr. Gagne read Section 17-1.7 (1), of Title 21 of the Salt Lake City Code, which was included in the staff report, when he circulated photo graphs that were recently taken of homes within 200 feet of the subject property, pointing out that most of the homes were larger in scale and massing than what was being proposed for Mr. Bullock's home, but the addition would not change the historical character of the house.
Mr. Gagne read Section 17-1.7 0), of Title 21 of the Salt Lake City Code, which was included in the staff report, and said that to comply with the current building codes, one cannot build anything above or beyond unreinforced masonry walls as far as something that is existing, and this ensures the form and integrity of the historical structure, so that part of the house would not be sacrificed. Mr. Gagne said that he had no intention of removing any historical material, other than the shed-style roof portion of the existing addition. He described the room size and the interior of the structure. Mr. Gagne said that by keeping all those existing. parts of the home intact, he thought that the historical integrity of the home would be maintained, also the addition would be able to be removed in the future without destroying the historical part of the home.
Mr. Gagne presented a brief description of the previous alterations that had been made to the house over the years which created very small rooms on the interior, many hallways between massive brick and adobe walls, and much wasted space. He said that the historical front part of the house has remained unscaved. Mr. Gagne discussed the details of the proposal, which was described in the staff report. He noted that the site plans were reduced so the scale that was depicted on the drawings was no longer valid. Also, he pointed out that the existing gable on the south end of the addition would have a height of 16 feet, instead of 11 feet and 6 inches, as shown on the drawings.
Mr. Bullock reported that much of the house is under a flat roof and apparently at one time, the flat roof had collapsed and was replaced with old and rotting timber, so when he purchased the house, he had to replace that part of the roof. He said that he wanted to pitch the roof, at that time, but because of the "Hodge podge" of additions that were added without foundations or support, it was not possible.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Hatch led the discussion by asking about the modifications implemented by Mr. Roberts on the drawings, which were included in the staff report. Mr. Gagne pointed out the noted changes since they were reviewed in the Architectural Subcommittee. There was some discussion regarding the drawings. Ms. Hatch indicated that the revised plans needed to be clarified. Mr. Gagne said that the brick shed addition on the south elevation would be removed, but the cross-wing portion of the house would remain intact. There was further discussion regarding the ridge line and dormer, of the proposed addition, that would be seen over the existing part of the house from the front (west) elevation.
• Mr. Pett clarified that the applicant had attended the Architectural Subcommittee meeting', but this was the first time the applicant had been in attendance in a meeting with the full commission. Mr. Pett inquired about the "birds eye" roof plan of the new design and asked Mr. Gagne to describe the changes. Mr. Gagne spoke of the break between the existing structure and the proposed addition, the painted brick portion of the exterior walls, and the wall plane of the proposed addition which would have a similar footprint as the existing house. Mr. Gagne noted that there seemed to be some errors on the drawings. Mr. Pett inquired about the proposed materials for the addition. Mr. Gagne stated that the proposed addition would be stucco and the fish scale shingles would be incorporated on the gables. He further described the variety of materials that were currently on the house, such as wood clap board siding, painted brick, and stucco. Mr. Bullock said that the existing stucco portions were applied over brick. He said that he was considering removing the stucco, but was not certain of the condition of the brick underneath. Mr. Bullock said that he would like to preserve the brick.
• Mr. Cooper discussed the matter of the east property line and asked if a variance would be required from the Board of Adjustment before a permit could be issued for the new addition. Mr. Bullock said he did not think so because the existing shed addition which currently sits on the property line to the east, already is in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Cooper referred to the photo graph in the staff report taken from the southwest corner of the house and asked if the proposed kitchen area would be in the same location as the existing brick shed-type addition. Mr. Bullock responded affirmatively.
• Mr. Miya inquired further into the property line issue. Mr. Gagne explained that the proposed addition would be two feet shorter than the existing addition in the rear, so it would not be constructed on the property line to the east.
• Ms. Williams asked if the applicant had pursued the split-level rear addition suggestion that was recommended by the subcommittee members. Mr. Gagne said that proposal had not been considered due to the cost of excavation and concrete, which he discussed earlier in the meeting.
• Ms. Miller asked if the applicant was still planning to brick up the windows on the north elevation. Mr. Bullock was affirmative and explained that there was only about four feet between that north wall and the neighbor's house. He added that a fireplace would be installed on the interior on that north wall.
In closing, Mr. Bullock stated that he loved these old homes and one of the things that bound he and this commission together was the desire to preserve the Historic homes. He said that he had previously worked with the preservation staff and declared that he was trying to retain the historical character of the house, both inside and outside. Mr. Bullock urged the commission to approve this project.
Mr. Pett opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public:
• Mr. Randy Dixon, who resides at 726 No. Wall Street, stated that several years ago he was a member of the Historical Landmark Committee and during that time, he had constructed an addition to his house, which might not have been approved by the requirements in the current ordinance. He spoke about the neighborhood, where large additions have already been added to Historic homes. Mr. Dixon referred to the plans for the intended addition and encouraged the commission to approve the addition, with the inclusion of the roof structure as proposed. Mr. Dixon recognized that some elements were missing in the current drawings, but encouraged the commission to work with the
applicant to allow this proposed addition, so the applicant could have the expanded living space.
• Mr. Sidney Draper, who resides at 680 No. Wall Street, said that the finest form of a complement is imitation because the proposed addition seemed to be an imitation of his home. He said that the 1940 tax photo graph, which was included in the staff report, showed the successful addition that was made to his home. Mr. Draper said that Mr. Bullock had put much time and effort into the improvement of his residence, and added that at one time, it was a candidate to be torn down.
Upon hearing no further requests to address the commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A discussion followed regarding a recent proposal for a large addition to a home on Quince Street. Mr. Cooper noted that in the past, 2" x 4" boards were allowed to frame additions, but by current standards, contractors are required to use 2" x 10" or 12" boards to accommodate insulation and to meet the seismic codes. He stated that the allowance of a large addition over a home, the Historic integrity would be lost and would have an impact in the neighborhood. Mr. Cooper stated that he had a chance to walk over to the property and he talked with Mr. Bullock and Mr. Gagne. He said that he did not see any other way to construct this proposed addition.
The conversation focused on the need for the commission to review a full set of accurate drawings drawn to scale, with detailed information, such as the materials. Some members suggested that there were other ways that additions could be added. Ms. Miller stated that as she reviewed the photo graphs in the planning office of the Capitol Hill area for additions to cross-wing houses, but could not find a photo graph which showed a rear addition from the front view. However, she said that perhaps there would be another way to construct this addition so it would not be seen from the street.
The commission had a lengthy discussion regarding the 1940's addition which was added to the home on the adjoining property, and the fact that the addition, itself, was historic, as well as other related matters.
Ms. Williams moved for conceptual approval for Case No. 008-96 and require the applicant to return to the Architectural Subcommittee with a full set of accurate drawings, which would include the articulation of materials, details, floor plans,
all elevations, and other documents necessary for the building permit, then return to the full commission for final approval. It was seconded by 1Ms. Swinton. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 009-96. at 720 North 300 West. by Roger Tuttle. requesting approval to construct a new art/photo studio.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She corrected part of the zoning specifics which was noted in the staff report, after conversing with the Zoning Administrator. Additional site drawings, photo graphs, and samples of the brick material were circulated to the commission members.
Mr. Roger Tuttle, the applicant, was present. He stated that the proposed materials would be a reddish color Atlas brick, would be good for insulation, and wavy glass blocks.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Morgan led the discussion by stating that he liked the plans and thought that they would work. However, he expressed his concerns regarding the screening of the mechanical equipment on the roof top. He made some suggestions how that could be accomplished by adjusting the roof line.
• Ms. Deal inquired about the missing elevation drawings. Mr. Tuttle stated that the south elevation drawings were omitted from the submitted plans because they were currently being redone. He described the changes, such as the window placement.
• Mr. Miya's comments focused on the front entry steps and the signage. Mr. Tuttle said that the front entry steps would need to be recessed so they would be under the overhang, due to the setbacks from the sidewalk. He referred to the signage that was illustrated on the site drawings and expressed a preference for signage that would have an icon rather than lettering. Mr. Tuttle said that he worked with wholesale customers and that there was no need to have it known, from the signage, that photography equipment was inside the building. Mr. Miya reminded the applicant that the signage proposal would have to be approved either by the staff or the full commission.
• Mr. Damery inquired about the parking area and the site lighting. Mr. Tuttle said that for security reasons, there would be shielded site 'lighting that would not go beyond the buffer zone.
Mr. Pett opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests to address the commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A short discussion followed regarding the details of the proposed structure.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No.009-96, as presented, based on the findings of fact in the staff report.
Mr. Morgan asked if an amendment could be added to the motion that the mechanical equipment, site lighting, and the signage be reviewed and final approval be given by staff. The motion was amended.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 009-96, as presented, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Further that the mechanical equipment, site lighting, and signage be reviewed and final approval be given by staff. It was seconded by Mr. Damery. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cooper, Ms. Swinton, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 010-96. at 235 No. East Capitol Boulevard. by Louis Ulrich and Magda Jakovcev requesting approval for major remodeling to the single family dwelling.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Louis Ulrich, the applicant, was present. He displayed a model of his house which depicted the proposed alterations. Mr. Ulrich stated that his International style of house was one of the smallest houses in the neighborhood. He described the extent of the addition and the alterations, which was included in the staff report. Mr. Ulrich stated they he currently has a single car garage and discussed the possibility of moving the retaining wall, which would allow for the expansion of the garage. However, he said that would require a back-yard variance from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Ulrich added that the plans that were in the submitted documents for this meeting had been revised from those that were first reviewed by the subcommittee.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the dimensions of the kitchen area. She commented that she liked the curvature of the southwest corner of the facade and thought that it was a strong element in the design of the house. Mr. Ulrich said that the lower level portion would not be curved because there was a grove of Aspen trees on the exterior which would be retained.
• Mr. Miya expressed his concerns about adding a third level to the home. He inquired about the ridge line of the roof in comparison with his neighbor's houses. Mr. Ulrich referred to the photo graph in the staff report that was taken of his home from across City Creek Canyon which showed the roof lines. He said that even though the neighbor's house to the south steps down, the top of the ridge of his house, after the proposed addition of the third level, would be the same height. Mr. Miya also commented on other proposed alterations.
Mr. Pett opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests to address the commission, Mr. Pett closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
The discussion continued. There were many opinions and circumstances expressed by members of the commission, such as the following: the plans that the subcommittee reviewed; the remarkable details on the house; concerns about the additional third level; concerns about the contextual issues; homes in Historic districts that have "pop up" additions which add to the interest of the design; concerns about the continuation of the rounded corner; concerns about the flat plane of the west elevation; and the unique stepping design of the structure.
The discussion turned to the zoning issues. Ms. Egleston said that the rear yard setback variance would have to be obtained by the Board of Adjustment, which should not be a problem, she was told, after conversing with the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Egleston said because of the odd shape of the subject property, the parcel on the diagonal would have to be measured and formulated.
• Because there were still some questions the applicant had to address, it was agreed by the commission that the meeting should be reopened to the applicant. Mr. Pett reopened the meeting. Ms. Deal asked what would the impact be on the proposed project if the applicant did not receive a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Ulrich said that it would have a significant impact on the project and would have to be redesigned. Mr. Pett reclosed the meeting to the public.
There was a short discussion regarding the wording of the motion.
Ms. Williams moved to approve Case No. 010-96, as presented, based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report. Further the Historic Landmark Commission will send a favorable recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to approve the required variance. It was seconded by Mr. Morgan. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted, "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cooper, Ms. Swinton, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
The owners of the Henry and Tile Cohn House at 1369 E. Westminster Avenue requested a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the nomination to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She commented that the registration form was not complete but thought there was enough information for the commission to make a decision. This request came from the Utah State Historic Preservation Office so tax credits could be issued. There was some discussion regarding the procedures for the tax credits. Mr. Miya asked if this home was included on the Utah Heritage Foundation tour a few years ago. Ms. Egleston answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Miya moved to send a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the Henry A. and Tile S. Cohn House to be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. It was seconded by Mr. Morgan. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cooper, Ms. Swinton, and Mr. Svikhart were not present. The motion passed.
The owners of the Salt Lake Hardware Building. at 101 North 400 West requested a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the nomination to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case and the findings of fact, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
She again commented that the registration form was not complete but thought there was enough information for the commission to make a decision. This request also came from the Utah State Historic Preservation Office so tax credits could be issued. A short discussion followed regarding the planned expansion of the area, and that the building would make a nice anchor there, although there was some question about the mechanical equipment on the roof. The building was remodeled as a nonlandmark site so the remodeling project was not in the purview of the Historic Landmark Commission to be reviewed.
Ms. Williams moved to send a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the Salt Lake Hardware Bui1ding to be nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. Miya, Mr. Morgan, and Ms. Williams unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Pett, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cooper, Ms. Swinton, and Mr. Svikhart were not present The motion passed.
A discussion with the Planning Director. Mr. William I. Wright. concerning the
Historic Landmark Commission's review of subdivision requests in Historic districts.
Ms. Miller stated that this item was added to the agenda as the result of the subdivision issue which stemmed from the May 1, 1996 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, pertaining to Case No. 007-96. She said that unfortunately this was scheduled while Mr. Wright was out of town and he Wf1S unable to attend this meeting. Ms. Miller added that this discussion would have to be postponed until the next commission meeting. She indicated that Mr. Wright was supportive in the request that the Historic Landmark Commission be involved with subdivision issues when the property lies within an Historic district.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:00 P.M.