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 Thomas Buese, Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, Susan Deal, Bruce Miya, Margaret Pahl, and Elizabeth Egleston.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Thomas Buese, Thomas Cerruti, Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, and Bruce Miya. Burke Cartwright, Lynn Morgan, Heidi Swinton, and Dina Williams were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Elizabeth Egleston and William T. Wright, Planning Director.
The meeting was called to order at 4:06P.M. by Chairperson, Wallace Cooper. Mr. Cooper 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. Cooper said that the Findings and Order will be mailed to the applicant at a later date. He acknowledged that the procedure for the appeal process was 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.
Mr. Cooper introduced and welcomed a new member of the commission, Mr. Thomas
A. Buese.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes of September 4, 1996 after a small correction is made. It was seconded by Mr. Cerruti. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, and Mr. Miya unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Buese abstained and Mr. Cooper, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS CASE
Case No. 011-96. at 140 West Pierpont Avenue. by John Williams of Gastronomy. Inc. represented by Magda Jajovcev. requesting final approval to allow six full-length doors on the south facade instead of four at the Baci Club.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She stated that included in the motion, at the July 17, 1996 meeting, was that this project would consist of four doors, only, which would replace the shorter windows on each side of the entrance door, instead of the requested six doors; and that the existing character-defining pattern of the long windows on each side of the entrance door would remain so the building would be able to keep the Historic character of the property. Ms. Egleston reminded the Commission that she recently had obtained photo graphs that portrayed that the original fenestration of the building was not how it currently exists, but that it consisted instead of three windows of equal size on the south facade. She pointed out that this case was brought before the Commission at the September 4, 1996 meeting as an "Other Business" issue, where the Commission amended the decision that had been previously rendered to allow the six doors. She said that the notification requirements were not met for that meeting, therefore the Commission's decision would have to be formally amended again. Ms. Egleston recommended that the original plans be adopted because the character-defining pattern on the front facade had previously been altered.
Ms. Magda Jajovcev, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant encouraged the Historic Landmark Commission to amend the motion and give final approval so the project could proceed.
As there were no questions by the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session. Executive Session
Ms. Deal moved to give final approval of the Historic Landmark Commission's decision which was rendered at the September 4, 1996 meeting for Case 011-96, as it was originally submitted, which would allow six full-1ength doors on the south facade instead of four. It was seconded by Mr. Miya. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, and Mr. Miya unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Buese abstained and Mr. Cooper, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.
• NEWCASES
Case No. 014-96. at 752 E. Sixth Avenue. by Dennis Glass. requesting approval to remodel the structure for a residence.
Ms. Egleston 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.
Mr. Dennis Glass, the applicant was present. He circulated complete drawings for the intended residence. Mr. Glass stated that he concurred with the information included in the staff report. He stated that the submitted plans were the same massing and design as what was reviewed in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting.
Mr. Glass explained that lime stucco was proposed for the structure with no stucco control joints on the existing brick surfaces. He reported on his discussion with an engineer. He said because the existing building was not well' built, it was suggested that a portion of the window openings on the west elevation be closed to strengthen the surface. He also spoke of reinforcing the structure to create seismic bracing. Mr. Glass said that he had not, as yet, had a full report from the engineer but indicated there was a possibility that there would be some changes in the configuration of the double doors on the south facade.
Mr. Glass discussed the current setbacks of the existing structure by which he was bound. He said that the existing structure was on the property line which met the current zoning and building codes. He pointed out that a fence would be constructed on the west property line or close to it. Mr. Glass noted that a variance would be needed from the Board of Adjustment to allow the proposed garage to be constructed fifteen feet off a ten-foot alley on the east property line. Mr. Glass reported that originally, he considered keeping the existing building as a commercial property, but after reviewing the zoning ordinances, the size of the structure could not be increased. He said that without an increase in the square footage, it would not be a profitable venture. He further said that the City encouraged a residential use.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Cooper led the discussion about asking about the variance that the applicant needed. Mr. Glass remarked that if a variance was not granted, it would be necessary to relocate the garage entrance to the north elevation, which would be less desirable. Mr. Glass described the reorientation of the front elevation of the proposed structure and the dimensions of the yard. Mr. Cooper asked if the windows were proposed to be recessed or would they be placed on the face of the building. Mr. Glass said that the windows and the doors would be recessed about three inches. Mr. Cooper addressed the sloped roof and the parapet walls on the north and south elevations. Mr. Glass explained that the existing parapet walls on the north and south elevations would continue as far as the east elevation. He said what he proposed to do would be to keep a flat parapet across the east elevation to meet the new addition underneath.
• Ms. Deal asked what kind of windows the applicant intended to use. Mr. Glass said that they would be thermopane vinyl windows. Ms. Deal addressed the reorientation and pointed out that the front of the proposed structure would have a totally blank facade on Sixth Avenue. Mr. Glass pointed out that would be the location of the courtyard, so that facade would not be totally blank. Also, he said that foliage such as ivy would be planted at the base of that facade, as well as a floral landscaping effect. Ms. Deal inquired further into the deck. Mr. Glass described the deck portion of the proposal and said that the parapet walls would act as a railing on the west elevation. There was discussion regarding the height of the parapet walls, the parapet walls to be used as a railing, and if that would meet the building codes. Ms. Deal suggested that pipe railing would be appropriate on top of the parapet walls for an International-style design.
• Mr. Miya referred to Section 17-1.7 (b) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, included in the staff report, "(b) The Historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved." He stated that the elevations were called out to be stucco and asked if the applicant had considered retaining the brick, since it is currently painted, and using stucco for the exterior of the new construction. Mr. Glass said that the existing building would have patchwork brick facades and that did not appeal to him. He thought the use of stucco for the entire structure would be more attractive. The discussion continued regarding these issues. Mr. Miya asked if the ten-foot alley was hard surfaced and questioned the size of the garage approach. Mr. Glass said that the alley was hard surfaced and that the twenty-five feet for the garage approach was adequate. Mr. Miya made some further suggestions regarding accessing the intended courtyard. There was some discussion regarding the floor plan and the foot print of the project.
• Mr. Buese questioned the necessity of covering the lower windows on the west elevation. Mr. Glass said because that elevation would be very close to the street, it would give the residents more privacy, as well as for reinforcement of that facade.
• Mr. Cerruti inquired about transferring a commercial building constructed in 1905 into a 1990's version of an International-style residence. Mr. Glass responded by pointing out that the laundromat was a nonconforming use for the commercial building and the zoning would not allow an increase in square footage. He determined to make the property residential. Mr. Glass said that rather than adding additional levels of the building to increase the size of a residence, he came up with a formula of adding onto the building and creating an International-style design for the structure with an urban yard.
Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing and the Historic Landmark Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A discussion followed. Ms. Deal said that she thought that the International-style was far more appropriate than other styles to basically take a commercial box on a corner and incorporate it into a more viable project. She said that the applicant had taken away some of the detailing of the roof parapet, the corner entrance, and the big windows on the west elevation, but she did not consider it a total wholesale change.
Mr. Damery said that sometimes you have to make a decision whether or not to preserve a building. He said that even though it might not be exactly what the applicant or the Commission would like, the building would be saved in some respect.
Mr. Buese said that he was in favor of the way the applicant had handled the massing of the project and suggested that the existing building remain brick and the new addition be in a compatible material for the exterior.
Mr. Cerruti still questioned the removal of Historic materials and alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property. He said that it appeared on the surface that the proposal would not meet that criteria.
Ms. Deal expressed her opinion that she thought the Historic character came in the basic form, which she thought was remaining. She also stated that she walks by the building often and said that it was not obvious to her that the exterior is painted brick, and when she reviewed it in the Architectural Subcommittee, she thought the building was stucco. Others were in agreement with her.
Mr. Cooper focused on the removal of Historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property that should be avoided and questioned the allowance of covering the existing brick surface with stucco. He also mentioned that a stepped parapet would be removed. Mr. Cooper stated that all the vestiges of the original "Mom and Pop" grocery store that this building once was would be lost. He added that the "Mom and Pop" commercial stores were part of the history of the Avenues, which are now being lost. Mr. Cooper also reminded the Commission of the policy to not allow the use of stucco over brick and pointed out other cases where requests were rejected. He continued by saying that if the Commission decided to render an approval on this case, as submitted, the reason needed to be very clear and concise. Mr. Cooper referred to the standards presented in Chapter 17-1.7 of the City's Zoning Ordinance where it stated, "Contemporary design for alternations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archeological material, " and pointed out the Staffs findings included in the staff report.
Mr. Wright addressed the zoning issues by stating that this property had never been zoned for a commercial use and the City's goal was to make the transition from a commercial to a residential use. He said that the Historic buildings in the Avenues and Capitol Hill areas were built before there was a zoning ordinance in place. Mr. Wright said that was the reason why the existing setbacks were allowed on this property as a nonconforming use. He said that he thought the applicant had done a fairly reasonable job of converting the land use to residential.
A lengthy discussion to ok place regarding the following issues: 1) the appropriateness of the vinyl windows. Some members suggested to use steel windows with a steel mullion as opposed to vinyl windows. Some members suggested changing the profile of the windows; 2) the problem with covering part of the existing windows on the west elevation; 3) the loss of the corner entry with the transom over the door. Some members referred to some other projects where the original entry was still clearly defined; 4) the suggestion that the windows on the front elevation would be recessed and one would still be able to read the Historic front opening; 5) the loss of the terra cotta coping; 6) the demolition an existing structure because of structural problems as opposed to preserving it but losing some of the Historic features; 7) covering up structural problems of a building with stucco does not ·fix the problems; 8) some wall would be removed and replaced with structured columns and beams; and 9) the possibility of retaining the existing brick and developing another brick element on the garage.
Some members raised some questions and it was agreed by the Commission to re open the hearing to the public to allow some additional questions and comments to the applicant. Mr. Glass was questioned about certain areas of the existing facade that revealed some very bad cracks and the deterioration of the brick. Mr. Glass said that those areas would be repaired and not just covered up with stucco. The hearing was re-closed to the public and the Commission continued in its executive session. The discussion continued.
Ms. Deal moved for conceptional approval for Case No. 014-96, based on the following changes: 1) that the parapet would remain; 2) that pipe railing would be constructed on top of the parapet for the deck areas; 3) that the brick would
be retained and not covered by stucco on the existing structure; and 4) that steel windows would be used as they were more appropriate for the International-style design of the house, rather than vinyl windows, as proposed.
After a short discussion, Ms. Deal amended the motion.
Ms. Deal moved for conceptional approval for Case No. 014-96, based on the following changes: 1) that the parapet would remain; 2) that pipe railing would be constructed on top of the parapet for the deck areas; 3) that the brick would be retained and not covered by stucco on the existing structure, except in the location of the courtyard because stucco would create a more continuity and would not be seen from the street; and 4) that steel windows would be used as they were more appropriate for the International-style design of the house, rather than vinyl windows, as proposed. It was seconded by Ms. Hatch.
The discussion continued. Mr. Buese was concerned about the consistency of the Commission if the brick would remain, to keep the original character of the commercial building, but remove the original storefront or the sense of the entry way on the corner. He said that the storefront was the only saving grace of a very nondescript building and the only thing that defined the original building.
The discussion turned to Mr. Cooper reporting that under the jurisdiction criterion of the State Historical Society, filling in an opening was permissible, if it met the guidelines. Many suggestions were made as amendments to the motion.
Ms. Deal moved for conceptional approval for Case No. 014-96, based on the findings of fact, included in the staff report, subject to the following conditions: 1) that the parapet would remain; 2) that pipe railing be used and be stepped down to meet the parapet to keep the original shape; 3) that the brick be retained and not covered by stucco on the existing structure, except in the location of the courtyard because stucco would create a more continuity and would not be seen from the street; 4) that the windows have a narrower profile which would be more appropriate for the International-style design of the house; 5) that the windows on the west elevation and the material for the door opening on the corner plane be set back; 6) for all major openings, there needed to be a variation in the plane; and 7) that the applicant is to return to the Architectural Subcommittee for final approval. The seconded still stood by Ms. Hatch. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, and Mr. Miya unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Buese abstained and Mr. Cooper, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 015-96. at 631 and 633 No. West Capitol Street. by Jim Oliver. represented by Nick Amabile, requesting to construct a duplex.
Ms. Egleston presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She pointed out that the Architectural Subcommittee members said that they could approve a carport in the front of the proposed structure if it was well-detailed. She said that the applicants liked the design of the front of the house and felt that a garage or carport might detract from it. Ms. Egleston stated that the applicants would detail out the driveway by using Bomonite and a landscaping planter, separating the two driveways, which would mitigate the effect of having cars in the front yard. Also she pointed out that there have been variances granted for front yard parking on this same side of the street in the past. Ms. Egleston said that there were also some issues with the north wall and how that would affect the neighbors on Clinton Avenue.
Mr. Jim Oliver and Mr. Nick Amabile, the applicants, were present. A display board was used to further demonstrate the project. Mr. Amabile stated that he would like to make some corrections to the staff report because the site plan that was included in the staff report was incorrect. He displayed the actual proposed site plan that had been presented to the Board of Adjustment when they were granted a variance for the 14 1/2-foot setback in the rear. Mr. Amabile described some of the differences in the site plans.
Mr. Oliver passed out copies of a document which summarized their reasons why a carport could not be constructed on that property site, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He introduced the idea of building a trellis which would create an open, light, and airy area would not hide the architectural elements on the front of the proposed house.
Mr. Amabile explained the importance of the design of the proposed structure and felt as if it would be a marquee on the street. He further explained the features that would divide the driveways and screen the auto mobiles which might be parked in that location.
As there were no questions by the Historic Landmark Commission at this time, Mr. Cooper opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the public: ·
• Ms. Peggy Gentiles, who resides at 107 West Clinton Avenue, pointed to her property on the site plan and stated that for clarification purposes she explained that a portion of the property site had been sold to her by a previous owner and was concerned about the variance the applicants were granted and the affect it would have on her property. She claimed that she had not been notified about the Board of Adjustment meeting where the variance was granted. Mr. Cooper indicated that this Commission did not have purview over these matters but assured her that an investigation would be made regarding the notification issue. Ms. Gentiles expressed her concerns over the amount of hard surfacing on the property site and the drainage problems that could occur.
Upon hearing no further requests, Mr. Cooper closed the hearing. The following are questions, comments, and concerns expressed by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Mr. Cooper led the discussion by asking how high the proposed structure would be from the grade to the ridge on the west elevation. Mr. Amabile said that he did not know what the exact height would be. Mr. Cooper indicated that the zoning ordinance would only allow a height of 30 feet from the grade to the mid-point in the gable. Mr. Amabile explained that could be complicated because each gable would become a different mid-point due to the grade of the land. Mr. Cooper assured him that each elevation would be reviewed to make certain that it was in compliance. Mr. Cooper further inquired about the windows. Mr. Amabile said that vinyl windows would be used which would be detailed and set back in the wall. Mr. Cooper suggested putting some kind of weather protection on the proposed door on the west elevation. Mr. Cooper also inquired about the lack of a landscaping plan and asked for confirmation that one was required for new construction. Ms. Egleston noted that the landscaping plan was required and would be requested for a later review. She said that the applicants explained that the rear yard would be comprised of trees, evergreens, and wildflowers because of the steep grade.
• Ms. Deal asked how many stories the proposed structure would have. Mr. Amabile said that it had 2 1/2 stories with no basement, only a crawl' space. Ms. Deal discussed other proposals that had previously been reviewed for this property site and one of the primary concerns was the drainage problem to the abutting properties. She pointed out that the current proposal for this site, seemed to make an attempt to mitigate those drainage problems. Ms. Deal inquired about the color of the synthetic stucco system. Mr. Amabile said it would be a neutral, earth-tone, color with a contrasting color for the trim.
• Mr. Damery suggested that the applicant make certain that the ground had settled before cement was poured for the driveways. He referred to a neighboring property by comparing the grade and pointing out that the driveway could no longer be used.
• Mr. Miya pointed out that the planter of which the applicants spoke was not detailed on the site plan. He also expressed his concern that there were several irregularities on the site plan, as well. Mr. Miya asked if underneath the driveway/parking areas was engineering fill Mr. Amabile responded affirmatively.
As there were no further questions or comments from the Commission, the Historic
Landmark Commission went into executive session. Executive Session A short discussion followed.
Mr. Miya moved to grant conceptional approval of Case No. 015-96 based on the following criteria for new construction, which is included in Section 17-1.8 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance: (a) scale and form, including height and width, proportion of principal facades, roof, shape, and scale of the structure; (b) the composition of principal facades, including proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids in facades, rhythm of entrance porch and other projections, and relationship of materials; and (c) relationship to street, including walls of continuity, rhythm of spacing and structures on streets, directional expression of principal elevation, and streetscape/pedestrian improvements. Further, that the applicant would return to the Architectural Subcommittee for further refinement of the details of the windows, the railing, the materials called out, and the site plan showing the landscaping details including the planter and the trellis for the front elevation, and the engineering fill or retaining wall. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cerruti, Mr. Damery, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, and Mr. Miya unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Buese abstained and Mr. Cooper, as chair, did not vote. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Swinton, and Ms. Williams were not present. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Cooper suggested that the Commission review, Case No. 014-96, because the applicant, Mr. Glass, was obviously not happy and asked what the Commission could do in the future to avoid that kind of situation. A discussion followed regarding this matter with several members making suggestions. An overview of the structure of the Commission meetings was presented by Mr. Cooper so there would not be any misunderstanding how a meeting should be conducted. It was also suggested that perhaps Mr. Glass misjudged the approach the members to ok when the proposal was reviewed at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting. The discussion continued.
Mr. Wright said that it was a judgment call the Commission members make based on specific cases. He suggested checking the ordinance to make certain that the criteria was met before rendering a decision on a project. Mr. Wright told the Commission that although consistency was an issue, the Commission had some room with which to work on specific cases. He said that it would be beneficial to include those issues in the findings of fact. A detailed discussion to ok place outlining the issues surrounding Mr. Glass' proposal, as well as the difficulty the Commission has in determining the reason for certain zoning changes.
In conclusion, Mr. Wright said that the Dennis Glass property was a nonconforming property and hardships developed with the conversion from commercial to residential. The Commission members understood that they try to deal with matters such as these the best way possible and not everyone will be satisfied.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:05P.M.