SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
Minutes of the Meeting Room 315, 451 South State Street
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission regular session meeting held on December 1, 2011.
A regular meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission was called to order on Thursday, December 1, 2011, 5:39:07 PM in Room 315 of the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah,.
Commissioners present for the meeting included, Chairperson Anne Oliver, Vice Chair Polly Hart, Dave Richards, Arla Funk, Earle Bevins III, Sheleigh Harding, Stephen James and Bill Davis.
Planning staff present for the meeting included Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager, Janice Lew, Senior Planner, Carl Leith, Senior Planner, Michaela Oktay, Principal Planner, Ray Milliner, Principal Planner and Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary. City Attorney Paul Nielson was also present.
FIELD TRIP 5:39:14 PM
Commissioners, Stephen James, Anne Oliver, Arla Funk, Polly Hart, Earle Bevins III and Dave Richards were present for the field trip along with staff members Joel Paterson and Michaela Oktay and Ray Milliner. All left the City and County Building at 4:00 p.m. and visited the sites of the public hearing items that evening.
219 4th Ave- The Commissioners asked about the proposed height increase and relative height compared to adjacent garage.
1363 Filmore- The Commissioner asked about other 2nd story additions in the neighborhood and the effect on contributing status. Questions were asked about the exterior finish on the building, the addition to the roof, the addition to the rear and about the height of the proposed garage.
DINNER 5:39:18 PM
Dinner was served to the Commission and staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126. The Commission had no substantive business to discuss.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR 5:39:35 PM Nothing to report at this time
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:39:52 PM Nothing to report at this time
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 MINUTES 5:39:57 PM
MOTION 5:40:16 PM
Commissioner Hart moved to approve the minutes of November 17, 2011. Commissioner Richards seconded the motion. Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Funk, and Davis voted Aye. Commissioners Harding and James abstained from voting. The motion passed with a 5-0 vote Chairperson Oliver did not vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS 5:40:44 PM No Public comment at this time.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 5:41:04 PM
PLNHLC2011-00648 Tracy Aviary Certificate of Appropriateness for New Construction – A request by Tracy Aviary, 589 East 1300 South for approval to allow new construction of: a holding building with an amphitheater, the purpose of which is to house birds in preparation for shows held in the amphitheater. a bird holding building that will house birds when not on display.
Mr. Ray Milliner, Principal Planner, reviewed the application as outlined in the Staff Report giving the history of the site and addressing the following topics.
Construction of a Ground Hornbills Exhibit
Remodel and renovation of the Wilson Pavilion
Construction and installation of a temporary bird holding trailer
The review and approval of a Master Plan for the Aviary
Review and approval of an education and guest services building Review and approval of an upgrade to the utilities and infrastructure Review and approval of a new owl forest exhibit.
Review and approval of a tree removal and preservation plan for the area.
Mr. Milliner stated it was Staff’s recommendation to approve the proposal with the conditions listed in the Staff Report.
Mr. Paul Svendsen, Tracy Aviary, stated there are two projects they were requesting Certificates of Appropriateness for: the first was the new bird show facility and the second was a smaller holding structure on the southeast corner of the Aviary. He reviewed the aspects of the proposed structures, construction materials that would be used and layout of the structures as presented in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Richards stated the sighting was problematic as it was a large blank wall along a high traffic area. He asked if the building could be inset with more vegetation that would screen the size of the building.
Mr. Svendsen asked the recommended distance from the sidewalk.
Commissioner Richards stated that it should be wide enough to plant trees so that the effect of the greenness continued as it was currently.
Chairperson Oliver asked if it was already part of the plan because the Staff Report stated there would be landscaping that would disguise a number of the simpler construction materials. She stated she was curious if that extended to the back of the subject building.
Mr. Svendsen stated a landscape plan was not submitted and shared the Commission’s concern. He stated that he was willing to work with the Commission or Staff to create some sort of landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the building.
Commissioner Richards stated looking at the site plan it was about the width of the sidewalk.
Chairperson Oliver asked if that was between the fence and the sidewalk.
Commissioner Richards stated the building was the fence.
Mr. Svendsen stated the building was intended to be the fence.
Chairperson Oliver asked what the space issues are with moving the building in.
Mr. Svendsen stated there were two options: Continue the fence around the arch and bring the building inside of that which would create dead useless space. He stated if the building were moved inside the existing office trailer would have to be removed to make space for the building which would create a number of logistical issues that they would rather not confront.
Commissioner Hart asked what about the option of coving the wall with ivy because the other problem will be graffiti if the wall was to be left blank. She asked if Commissioner Richards thought planting ivy would help.
Commissioner Richards stated he thought it would help but he would like to see a larger distance between the building and the sidewalk to allow shrubbery to be planted. He stated he would like to see something put in place that kept the feel and look of what existed in the area.
Chairperson Oliver stated she agreed something needed to be done to blend the building with the fence and the area that would soften the blank wall.
Commissioner Richards stated he did not have a problem with the fence terminating the building for the reasons that Chairperson Oliver stated. The Commission and Applicant discussed what the metal the building would be sided with.
Mr. Svendsen asked the Commission if they would like him to return at a later date with other options. He stated he would be happy to work with Staff to come up with alternatives for the wall.
Commissioner Richards stated everything else looked great but the wall was the only concern he had.
Mr. Svendsen stated the bird holding building was in for permitting currently and they hoped to break ground on it as soon as the permit was granted. He stated the subject building was on a slower track and he was certain a proposal for a more fitting structure could be presented. He asked if the Commission would like to defer the approval to Staff or if he needed to present the options to the full Commission at a later date.
Chairperson Oliver clarified that Mr. Svendsen would be comfortable if the application were broken into parts with the amphitheater being approved and the holding building being addressed at a later date.
Mr. Svendsen stated that would be fine.
PUBLIC COMMENT 5:59:00 PM Chairperson Oliver opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, Resident, suggested adding a dog leg or segmented section to the building similar to the fencing. She asked the Commission to continue to work on softening the wall.
Chairperson Oliver closed the Public Hearing.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 6:00:37 PM
Commissioner James stated he did not see the wall as an issue but more of an opportunity for signage for the aviary or an exhibit element that could possibly draw people into the Aviary. He stated it was not necessary to cover the wall if it could possibly be used for another functional purpose.
Chairperson Oliver stated that was a good point but something could be done to break up the facade. She asked the Commissioners if they had any questions regarding the amphitheater or the first holding area. Chairperson Oliver stated the application could be broken into two parts to allow the Applicant to proceed with the amphitheater and address the Commission’s concerns regarding the holding facility.
Commissioner James stated it was a great facility and he did not think anything needed to be addressed.
MOTION 6:03:42 PM
Commissioner James made a motion in regards to PLNHLC2011-00648 the Historic Landmark Commission approve the submittal with the following conditions:
1. Final approval of exterior materials and windows shall be delegated to staff for compliance with the SLC Historic District Design Guidelines review.
2. Both buildings must meet all other applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements, including setbacks, maximum footprint and lot coverage.
3. The applicant shall continue working with the City arborist to ensure that all trees proposed to be removed and replaced are appropriate for the site, and that as many existing trees as possible are preserved and maintained.
Commissioner Bevins seconded the motion.
Chairperson Oliver asked if the Commission agreed to have Staff approve the changes and updates or should it be re-presented to the Commission.
Commissioner Hart stated she would refer it to Staff.
Commissioner Richards asked if Commissioner Hart meant Staff could approve all of the changes.
Commissioner Hart stated that was correct as the only concern was the second building. Commissioner’s Richards and Funk stated they would prefer to see the updates and changes addressed by the Historic Landmark Commission.
Commissioner James amended the motion to have the Commission review the final outcome of the fence wall.
Chairperson Oliver clarified that the application would return to the full Commission for approval.
Commissioner Bevins seconded the amendment. Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Funk, Harding, James and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 7-0 vote, Chairperson Oliver did not vote.
6:07:04 PM
PLNHLC2011-00466 Ronald McDonald House, 925 & 935 E South Temple Certificate of Appropriateness for New Construction and Additional Height - A request by Ronald McDonald Charities represented by Casey McDonough, CRSA Architects, to remodel an existing building and build a new four story building at approximately 925 E. South Temple. As part of the review, the applicant is requesting Commission approval of an additional 15 feet of height over the allowed 35 feet. The purpose of the structure is to provide accommodation facilities for families dealing with major medical issues.
Mr. Milliner reviewed the history of the application and the direction given to the Applicant from the Commission. He stated the following changes had been made to the building as per the Commission’s directions:
Removed gables from corner and bay windows.
Removed curved sun shades from corner and gabled bay windows. Added flat roof at top of 3rd story on corner and at square bay windows.
Made two window pairs at curved bay windows and the windows above the curved bays at the 4th floor.
Added porch and different entry at corner. Made overhangs deeper.
Modified 4th floor of corner tower so that curve of windows matches curve of bay windows.
Changed the brick so that there is a dark base, medium middle and light top. Added recessed brick courses to base brick.
Added recessed brick courses at corners of tower and top of tower as well as at square bays to imply quoins at those corners.
Changed windows at the corner tower so that the 1st and 2nd floor have taller transom windows and the 3rd floor smaller transom windows.
Changed windows on the corner tower 4th floor so that there are four instead of three. Changed windows on the rest of the building so that the 1st and 2nd floors have transoms. Made the headers above doors and windows taller.
South Temple entrance
Mr. Milliner stated it was Staff’s recommendation to approve the additional height exception based on the changes and direction from the Commission at the last meeting.
Commissioner James asked if the Plans in the submittal reflected the elevation changes and if the plans were changed or if just the skin of the building was changed.
Mr. Milliner stated he would need to direct those questions to the Applicant.
Mr. Casey McDonald, CRSA Architect, asked the Commission if they wanted him to review the reasons for the added height and the history of the project.
The Commissioners stated they were willing to hear the information again if anyone needed the information.
Chairperson Oliver summarized the information in saying there was precedence for taller buildings along South Temple and the Applicant showed there are taller buildings in the area that would warrant the approval for the additional height.
Mr. McDonald explained the need for extra living space. He reviewed the reasons for the floor plan to allow for expansion in the future. He reviewed the grade changes for the site. Mr. McDonald stated the plan did not change in a major way but some of the perimeter did change to accommodate the proposal. He reviewed the layout, materials and use of the building. He explained there was a big fear that if the entrance on South Temple were more prominent people would mistake it for the main entrance and cause people to stop in the wrong places. Mr. McDonald reviewed the rhythm of the building in contrast to the surrounding apartment buildings. He reviewed the aspects of the building that would make it a landmark on the street. He asked the Commission if they had any questions about the building and the design.
Commissioner Davis stated one of the prior concerns was that the character defining feature of buildings on South Temple was the orientation to face South Temple and open onto South Temple, which this building did not. He stated the second rendering showed a feature that appeared to be an entrance which was a step in the right direction but did not orient the building to the south due to the amount of block face. He asked if it would be beneficial to have two fake entrances to achieve the south facing orientation. Commissioner Davis stated people would find the parking area. He suggested the addition of signage to indicate the location of the parking.
Mr. McDonald asked if a curved staircase on either side of the sign to look as if one would enter the building at that point would solve the problem.
Commissioner Richards stated he had the same concern because it was an entrance that could not be entered from South Temple due to the planter wall. He stated it did not address South Temple and one would be walking into a multipurpose room when the lobby was at the other end of the building. Commissioner Richards stated it was not at the approval stage however, the rest of the building was much improved over the last submission.
Mr. McDonald stated the reason for the current design was for the Ronald McDonald House to be secure. He stated having an entry on South Temple would defeat the purpose of the main entry which was to manage who was coming and going in the home. Mr. McDonald explained the doors on the South Temple side were available as exits.
Commissioner Richards stated it seemed the building entrance should be on South Temple.
Ms. Karrie Romono, Director of Ronald McDonald House, stated she understood the concern regarding South Temple and the building’s relationship to the street. She reiterated the purpose of the Ronald McDonald House and the need to provide a safe and secure place for the people using the facility. Ms. Romono explained the entrance to the building was changed to eliminate confusion when entering the building from the parking area. Ms. Romono said as the proposed project was reviewed it was the consensus of their Board of Directors as well as people who used the facility that more than one entrance was a huge safety concern.
Commissioner Funk asked how people were informed about the use of the Ronald McDonald House.
Ms. Romono explained the referral process and how families come to use the facility. Commissioner Davis asked why someone walking up South Temple would decide to walk into the Ronald McDonald House.
Ms. Romono stated several treatment programs were located in the area and there were people that would come in looking for food and shelter. She explained the flow of pedestrian traffic in the area and staffing issues were reasons a second entry was not located on South Temple.
Commissioner Davis stated the problem was not the location of the entrance on the back of the building.
Ms. Romono stated they were worried that an entrance on South Temple would create confusion for people staying at the facility.
Mr. Allen Roberts, CRSA Architects, stated if the idea of “form follows function” rather than “form for its own sake” was believed then he thought it was difficult to push creating a false sense of entry when functionally it was not there. He stated the historic buildings with strong entries on South Temple were built during the carriage and buggy era and the newer buildings did not have a strong sense of entry because people parked and entered in the back of the buildings. Mr. Roberts stated a balustrade or other architectural element could be placed along the south side.
Chairperson Oliver stated she disagreed with the statement regarding the newer buildings not having entries off of South Temple.
Mr. Roberts stated they did not have articulated entries from South Temple such as the IBM building which was just a series of repetitive arches and the Governor’s Plaza.
The Commissioners and Mr. Roberts discussed which buildings had entries off of South Temple, which did not and the architecture features of the buildings.
Commissioner Bevins asked if the Architects looked at the design guidelines for South Temple before they designed the building.
Mr. Roberts stated they did.
Commissioner Bevins stated it was clear in the guidelines that the orientation should be toward the street.
Mr. Roberts stated they felt the building and western element were clearly oriented to the street. Chairperson Oliver stated the Commission understood the need to have the entry on the back of the building however, there needed to a balance between the historic district and the building’s needs.
Commissioner Richards asked if the Architect and Applicant would be open to moving the curved planter wall and bringing stairs to the street.
Mr. Roberts explained along the lower level the doors lead to court yards used for children’s activity areas and another row of planting would be along the property line. He stated the goal was to provide a protected area for the kids to play and the indoor/outdoor area for the families as well. Mr. Roberts stated visually a stairway could be created but it would not be functional for people to come into the court yard and interact with the residents.
Chairperson Oliver stated buildings in the area typically had their narrowest end facing the street. She asked if the Architect considered breaking up the height of the building along the top.
Mr. Roberts stated the buildings in the area were not broken up horizontally so they figured the Commission would not want that type of design.
Chairperson Oliver stated some had porches that broke up the long expanse of the building.
Mr. Roberts stated the only thing that broke up the proposed building was the meditation room as it was its own element with different materials, colors, roof type, and glass. He said at that point in the building there was a break and there are four other bays with the recessed areas between each bay. He said because of the height limitation they had not considered vertical variation. Mr. Roberts stated they would have liked the tower element, at the access on 900 East, to be even taller which was the purpose of the gable elements. He stated the height request would allow for nine foot ceilings in the building instead of eight foot. Mr. Roberts stated if the tower element on the west were taller they would consider having a two or three story portico with balustrades like those on historic apartment buildings but they did not want to draw people to an area that was not an entrance.
Chairperson Oliver stated that was correct but there may be other design solutions to break up the long horizontal mass of the wall along South Temple particularly if there was not going to be a major focal point, entry, on that side of the street.
Mr. Roberts stated there was a different roof proposed for the meditation room.
Commissioner James stated the facility followed a suburban model and not an urban model. He stated he thought a solution to the entrance would be difficult to achieve until the urbanism was right. Commissioner James asked if the problem was not in fact South Temple itself which is a major arterial dedicated to traffic movement. He stated the street itself has become a highway and if bringing activity to the street is the goal; the function of the street would have to be changed. Commissioner James stated essentially what was being proposed was a typical suburban response to a busy street or a highway; it was a suburban motel type. He stated he understood the safety needs and concerns but it was the role of the Commission to apply the guidelines. Commission James stated he only agreed to allow the additional height if the guidelines were followed.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:41:51 PM
Chairperson Oliver opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, Property Owner, stated the development of the property was positive as it returned the property to a housing use and removed a non-conforming use. She stated there were positive aspects of the project that came with the changes such as the meditation room which appeared to be less circular. Ms. Cromer stated she thinks there is a need to have greater mass on the corner as a focal point when approaching 900 East. She stated the complaints about security were things that every landlord in the neighborhood dealt with all the time. Ms. Cromer stated she felt some of the concerns of the families using the Ronald McDonald House could be dealt with by more information being given to the families when they were referred to the site. She stated the wall with the Ronald McDonald sign felt like a barrier from the street. Ms. Cromer stated if you could segregate sense of entry from orientation to the street that might be helpful and a common way to orient to the street, in that area was with porches.
Mr. Adam Mendenhall stated he supported the building location and the height as there were numerous taller buildings in the area. He said his main concern was for new developments to have more long term sustainability. Mr. Mendenhall suggested the different ways the buildings could be sustainable.
Chairperson Oliver closed the Public Hearing.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 6:46:58 PM
Commissioner Funk stated she found the front of the building to be a massive wall and thought a defining entrance, even in the middle, might be better. She stated as far as the security was concerned the doors could be locked from the outside and a sign indicating the location of the entrance could be placed on them. Commissioner Funk said on the North side there could be an awning indicating the entrance and as Ms. Cromer stated more information could be given to the families from the referral point as to where to enter the building. She stated it was the Commission’s obligation to provide for a long term look on South Temple because it was a historic street and the Commission was obligated to actually make that happen. She stated the way the entrance was currently located it was not noticeable and the older buildings generally had some kind of breakage in the middle of the front which in the proposed building could be a mock entrance.
Chairperson Oliver stated the Architect addressed the issue of “form and function” and she thought the Commission’s consensus at the meeting was that in allowing greater height they were allowing the creation of something that would anchor the building to South Temple. She stated the current proposal did not address those issues and was simply changing the appearance of the façade and not the form of the building.
Commissioner Funk suggested project the center of the building out or providing some kind of relief from the massive wall.
Commission James stated architecturally what was probably making the program arrangement difficult was that it looked like a new entrance was being created.
Chairperson Oliver stated the form of the building was following the function but the building was on South Temple and it could not turn its back on South Temple. She said there needed to be a design solution to that problem and the proposal did not solve it.
Commissioner James stated the idea of an entrance off the parking was appropriate but not the main entrance. He said one of the fundamental tenants of city making was the sidewalk should be active. He asked whether they want South Temple to be an active pedestrian street and if so then the proposal would not contribute to that plan.
Commissioner Hart stated she thought the people using the building would not be contributing to the activity on the street that they would be using the back entrance and coming and going in cars.
Commissioner Hart stated she agreed the appearance of an entrance along South Temple was needed but she was not sure it was reasonable for it to be the main entrance to the building.
Commissioner James stated it was silly to require the appearance of an entrance that was not an entrance.
Commissioner Hart stated the only other option was for the back to be against the street which was not good either.
Commissioner Richards stated he disagreed and thought that people staying in the building, long term, would tend to use the front entrance along South Temple, maybe not the same as they would use one on an office building but there would still be a function for it.
Commissioner James stated then the internal space should be a public space instead of a door that went to a back area.
Commissioner Richards stated that was why the lobby or main corridor area needed to be at that location.
Commissioner James stated the issue was more fundamental. The Commission could not dictate fussy little changes that created a nonfunctioning building. He stated there had to be an established pattern with which the building interacted in a certain way and the architecture contributed to it. He said the programs could not determine the look of the outside of the buildings. Commissioner James stated he thought it was possible to solve all the issues and a discussion needed to be held on how things could be addressed in each area.
Chairperson Oliver stated the design guidelines were the Commission’s purview and served them well. She said their purview was not to figure out the programming but to talk about the exterior and how it contributed to South Temple. She said the proposal did not meet a number of the guidelines, if it did then the design would be less problematic. She read standards 1-4 in the guidelines that the proposal did not meet.
Commissioner James stated the Commission should not get caught up in reconciling all that was not working because it simply did not reflect the intent of the guidelines.
Commissioner Funk stated Ms. Cromer made a good point that the corner of the building should be the highest point and not recessed. She suggested moving it to the other side of the building or having the courtyard in the center of the site. Commissioner Funk stated the Commission and Applicant needed to discuss different ways to address the building.
Chairperson Oliver agreed., She stated the proposal did not comply with the guidelines. She stated it was still important, due to the area being the termination point for 900 East, to have a height allowance that would give greater flexibility in design, particularly with a building as long as what was proposed.
Commissioner Funk asked if the Applicant would be willing to meet with an Architectural Subcommittee or if they would rather work on it on their own.
Commissioner James stated he did not know if an Architectural Subcommittee was the right direction for the proposal as it was a programmatic issue.
Commissioner Harding stated she liked the idea of a subcommittee as she thought it would give the Applicant concrete direction.
Mr. Milliner stated he was willing to work with the Applicant or schedule an Architectural Subcommittee to come up with new designs as it sounded like the design would need to change dramatically in order to be approved.
Commissioner Hart asked if the Commission was allowed to approve the height increase, only, so the Applicant knew the Commission was in favor of the increased height.
Mr. Milliner stated there would be a problem with voting for a height increase as the final height of the building was unknown. He stated Staff would be operating under the assumption that the Commission was open to a height increase provided that the design was correct.
Chairperson Oliver stated an Architectural Subcommittee would not be beneficial in this case as the Applicant was an accomplished architectural firm with experience with historic districts, buildings and designs. She asked if it would be better for Staff and the Applicant to work together to come up with other options and return to the Commission for a work session.
MOTION 7:04:06 PM
Commissioner Funk made a motion regarding case number PLNHLC2011-00503 that the Historic Landmark Commission continue the hearing and , have the Applicant work with Staff to address design issues and at the appropriate time bring back tentative or finalized ideas to the Commission for review.
Commissioner Hart stated the case number should be PLNHLC2011-00466 as the number on the packet was incorrect.
Commissioner Funk stated she accepted the correction.
Commissioner James seconded the motion.
Commissioner Bevin asked if Staff was clear on the direction recommended by the Commission.
Mr. Milliner stated yes, he understood the Commission wanted something that followed the design guidelines.
Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Funk, Harding, James and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 7-0 vote, Chairperson Oliver did not vote.
7:05:55 PM
PLNHLC2011-00057 219 E 4th Avenue Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Alterations – A request by David Richardson, Architect/Builder, for major alterations to build a new garage at approximately 219 E. 4th Avenue. The request is for the approval of new garage at the rear of the property, increasing the height and making grade changes over 2 feet to accommodate construction.
Ms. Oktay reviewed the application as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated it was Staff’s recommendation to approve the petition as proposed.
Mr. David Richardson, Architect for the project, stated the petition was all about grade change at
this point and he had nothing more to add to Ms. Oktay’s presentation.
Commissioner Richards asked if anyone was able to access the right of way.
Mr. Richardson explained the difficulty in using the right of way and stated it was the reason for the garage setback that would make it easier for everyone.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:10:44 PM
Chairperson Oliver opened the Public Hearing. Seeing there was no one in the audience that wished to speak for or against the petition the Public Hearing was closed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 7:10:56 PM
MOTION 7:11:04 PM
Commissioner James made a motion regarding PLNHLC2011-00057 based on the analysis, findings in the Staff Report and its compliance with the guidelines that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the exception for the grade change and approve the proposal. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion
Commissioner Richards stated the proposal was for additional height as well.
Commissioner James stated he amended his motion to include the additional height. Commissioner Davis agreed to the amendment.
Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Funk, Harding, James and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 7-0 vote, Chairperson Oliver did not vote.
7:12:24 PM
PLNHLC2011-00604 1363 S Filmore Street Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Alterations – A request by Warren Lloyd, Architect, for major alterations and a new garage at approximately 1363 S. Filmore Street. The request is for the approval of a rooftop addition on the home, and increasing the allowable height for a new garage.
Ms. Oktay reviewed the application as presented in the Staff Report. She stated based on the analysis and findings of the staff report, it was Planning Staff’s opinion that the rooftop addition proposal did not substantially meet the relevant design standards for alterations to the significant contributing property in the Westmoreland Historic District. She said Staff found that the new garage generally met the standards of the ordinance with the exception of the additional height request. Ms. Oktay stated it was Staff’s recommendation for the Commission to convene an Architectural Subcommittee to review the design options with the Applicant and make a decision as to the additional garage height after matters concerning a rooftop addition were decided.
Commissioner James asked if the proposal included new addition only or any restoration work of the existing structure.
Ms. Oktay stated it was mostly for the addition.
Commissioner Richards asked when the survey to determine the contributing status of the structure was conducted.
Ms. Oktay stated it was fairly recent but she did not have an exact date. Chairperson Oliver stated the survey was conducted about a year and a half ago.
Commissioner Richards asked if Staff was saying the other structures listed in the application that were non-contributing were made non-contributing by their additions or they were non- contributing prior to the additions.
Ms. Oktay stated as part of the survey they were considered contributing because of the additions.
Commissioner Hart stated looking at the homes it looks like they were non-contributing because of the second story additions.
Commissioner James asked why the second story addition made it non-contributing.
Ms. Oktay stated the survey did not specify but it was possibly not only the pop top addition but also a large addition in the back.
Commissioner James stated in his opinion the style of the subject house was one that he would deem appropriate for the addition of a pop top style addition as it clearly fit into the language. He asked why the addition, itself, would take away the contributing status of the home.
Ms. Coffey, Assistant Planning Director, stated it was because the original structure would lose its physical integrity and was not how the home was originally constructed.
Commissioner James asked if it had been toward the back did it still lose the contributing status. Ms. Coffey stated because a rear addition was not readily visible and would not probably change the main architecture of the building it would not change the contributing status.
Chairperson Oliver explained how the surveys are conducted and that it was up to the judgment of the surveyor as to whether a large roof top or rear addition detracted from the home’s original appearance enough to change its rating to non-contributing from contributing.
Mr. Joel Patterson, Planning Manager, stated the fact that the proposed addition stepped back from the front of the house needed to be a consideration as there were roof top additions in the area that did not have the stepped back feature.
Mr. Warren Lloyd, Architect, stated there were no local design guidelines for Westmoreland and since the craftsman bungalow was one of the significant houses in Westmoreland he thought it was important for a building typology study to be included in the report. He stated there were four non-contributing bungalows in the existing survey presumably because of additions. Mr. Lloyd reviewed the homes in the area that were non-contributing and what features caused them to be non-contributing. He stated a home at the end of the block with a second story addition was closer to the proposed project then other homes on the street. Mr. Lloyd reviewed the plans and layout of the proposed addition as presented in the Staff Report. He reviewed each of the ordinance standards Staff indicated as cause for denial and explained how the project actually met each required standard. Mr. Lloyd reviewed the plans as presented and the alternate plans available that might be more appealing to the Commission. He said in the proposal was a good example of additions currently allowed in Westmoreland. He asked the Commission to approve the proposal, either what was drawn or option B, or in the alternate to request a review committee allowing further review of the application.
Commissioner James asked if there were limits that prevented the Applicant from extending the back of the home.
Mr. Lloyd stated he had reviewed the setbacks for the property and explained an addition to the rear of the home was planned for a family room. He stated not all of the desired programming would fit into the rear addition.
Commissioner Richards asked if the Applicant had considered the option of designing the second story as a central gable, in a sense stacking up a third gable from the porch.
Mr. Lloyd stated they had and it was not compatible with the existing home. He stated they felt the addition needed to be horizontal in nature.
Commissioner James asked about the relationship with the front right dormer and the building mass to the chimney.
Mr. Lloyd stated it was close and it might be too close. He stated it worked but placed the eve line close to the chimney stack. Mr. Lloyd said alternate B replaced the two gable dormers with a shed dormer and might be an easier way to resolve the issue. He said the owner would like to retain the fireplace. Mr. Lloyd stated a window schedule was submitted that indicated the amount of restoration that was planned for the home. He stated a majority of the main floor windows would be restored with original windows in the same openings. Mr. Lloyd stated new windows were proposed for the addition.
Commissioner Richards asked if the large fixed, glazed panes were original.
Mr. Lloyd stated they were as far as they knew there was not any proof that the windows were not original and would be restored as such. Mr. Lloyd stated the windows were an interesting detail that made the front of the home unique. He spoke of the unique details of the front porch gable and the aspects of the home that needed to be protected.
Mr. Ken Engeman, Property Owner, thanked the Staff for their help with the process. He stated his desire to keep within the history of the home and make the addition look as if the original contractor had designed it that way. He stated the neighbors were in favor of the project and he was willing to do what was necessary to make the project fit with the area.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:45:36 PM
Chairperson Oliver opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience wished to speak on the issue.
Chairperson Oliver closed the Public Hearing.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 7:45:47 PM
Commissioner Bevins stated the question was did the Commission allow a house to expand upward with a pop top addition.
Commissioner Richards stated the lot was narrow and normally an addition to a bungalow would be at the rear of the main floor as to not disrupt the form of the home. He stated historically there were quite a few two story bungalows of the same design in the area therefore, roof top addition did not change the style but definitely changed the impact to this particular house.
Commissioner James asked the Commission for their opinion if the standards actually applied to this condition or was it meant for a different building typology such as additions off the back. He stated as he read through the standards he did not know if all the standards could be applied in every case every time.
Commissioner Richards stated most of the standards, referenced in the Staff Report, were aimed at additions on the ground level or ground level with a tall roof but none of them seemed to address a roof top addition. He stated given the restrains of the lot and the flat roof slope of the home there were not many options for an addition.
Commissioner James stated the style and lot size of the subject home restricted the placement of an addition any place but on the roof. He said if the Commission restricted additions on that style of home they would be essentially restricting any future development on small lots with low sloped roofs.
Commissioner Bevins ask where the issue of historical integrity applied.
Commissioner James stated the standards did not prohibit changes from being made but the changes needed to be sensitive and not disrupt what was valued in the original structure.
Chairperson Oliver stated the scale of the proposed addition was one of the bigger issues because it nearly doubled the size of the house.
Commissioner James asked if as a Commission they were concerned solely with the historical integrity of individual houses or were they looking at the broader context of the neighborhood. He stated the first thing he noticed on the field trip was that the subject house was swamped by its neighbors.
Chairperson Oliver stated she could not remember if the houses to either side were original or if they had additions but that was historical context. She said there were a number of little tiny bungalows, such as this one, maybe not on the same block face but in the area that had not been altered. She asked how much addition could a house handle and still retain its integrity.
Commissioner Hart stated the two houses to the south were two story houses that had not been altered but were almost the only two story houses in the district as most of the houses were bungalows. She said she agreed with Chairperson Oliver that the addition was overwhelming.
Commissioner James asked if it was the scale of the addition that was the concern.
Commissioner Harding stated the addition would not met standard 8.14 which was to keep the addition physically and visually subordinate to the historic building. She said that was what the Commission was struggling with because it was a huge addition to the home and could not be subordinate although it met the setback standard.
Commissioner Hart stated it was not that she disliked the addition but if she were conducting a survey she would list the subject home as non-contributing because it no longer was the same form.
Commissioner Richards clarified that Commissioner Hart was saying non-contributing with the addition.
Commissioner Hart stated that was correct because with the addition the structure would no longer be a horizontal bungalow.
The Commission debated whether or not the addition would be allowed if it were considered a rebuild and not an addition and what the contributing status would be of the home.
Commissioner Richards asked if the Commission would be opposed to the proposal as a rebuild instead of an addition.
Commissioner Hart stated they might but it still would be a non-contributing building as there are a lot of pop tops in the neighborhood and none of them are contributing in the survey.
Commissioner James stated he disagreed and would say that every pop top on the street today was contributing to the character of the neighborhood.
Chairperson Oliver stated it may contribute to the character of the neighborhood and it may be a nice looking addition to the home but under the way the guidelines and the standards of the City were written the addition did not comply.
Commissioner James stated the standards were written to preserve character. He stated he thought it was a philosophical approach to preservation because he had seen many pop tops in the area that were much worse and they had a detrimental effect to the character of the district. He said what he saw on the field trip did not erode the historic character of the neighborhood but the homes contributed to it in their own way outside of the language of preservation.
Chairperson Oliver stated it was the job of the Historic Landmark Commission to work within the language of historic preservation.
Commissioner James stated it was the Commissions job to interpret it.
Commissioner James stated based on the guidelines this could happen behind the ridge line and be less characteristic of the house when it was approved.
Chairperson Oliver stated it did not have to happen behind the ridge line but had to be subordinate and meet the standards not the guidelines. She read the standards that applied to the project and how the project did not met them.
Commissioner James asked how often in the last few meetings the Commission had allowed roof top additions.
Commissioner Hart stated they had allowed roof lines to be raised but no second story roof top additions.
Commissioner Harding stated she like the idea that the Applicant was receptive to an Architectural Subcommittee. She said there were alternate plans that would possibly be less massive therefore, the Commission should go with the Staff’s recommendation.
Commissioner Bevins stated the drawings, submitted at the meeting, without the top gable seemed more acceptable.
MOTION 7:57:45 PM
Commissioner Harding made a motion regarding PLNHLC2011-00604 to concur with Staff’s analysis, findings in the Staff Report and recommendation for the Historic Landmark Commission to convene an Architectural Subcommittee to review the design options with the Applicant and make a decision regarding the additional garage height after matters concerning the roof top addition are decided. Commissioner Hart seconded the motion.
Commissioner James asked what was hoped to be achieved in the Architecture Review Committee or was it to reprogram the house.
Commissioner Harding stated it was to look at the alternate designs and see if there was something that would be a little more subordinate.
Chairperson Oliver said with the understanding that subordinate may require reprogramming to a greater or lesser extent.
Commissioner Funk asked if the garage was to be approved or if it would be decided later.
Chairperson Oliver stated the motion indicated the garage would be addressed after a decision is made on the addition.
Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Funk, Harding, James and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 7-0 vote Chairperson Oliver did not vote.
Commissioners Richards, Hart, James and Harding will be on the Subcommittee.
8:02:39 PM Five minute break.
8:12:23 PM
Ms. Coffey stated the City Council had adopted the Preservation Philosophy and the Legislature would start meeting at the end of January. She said Staff was now working on the amendments to the ordinance regarding designation of local historic districts to incorporate the City’s preservation philosophy and address the Legislatures expectations. Ms. Coffey explained the tight schedule, which would need to be followed, to move the document along in the process.
8:14:31 PM
PLNPCM2009-00628, Commercial Design Guidelines the Salt Lake City Planning Division has drafted a new section for the design guidelines use by the Historic Landmark Commission to make design review decisions for properties with local historic designation. This supplemental information will provide guidance for commercial properties. The petition requires the Historic Landmark Commission to forward a recommendation to the City Council.
Ms. Janice Lew, Senior Planner reviewed the updates to the draft document as outlined in the Staff Report noting the following:
The draft includes the “Historic District” section which was inadvertently omitted in the November 3, 2011 draft. Discussion in this section has been simplified to focus on commercial properties
Several chapters include and Additional Information section
A communal introductory section will be crafted for the Residential, Commercial and Sign Design Guidelines.
She stated Staff was asking the Historic Landmark Commission to continue the Public Hearing regarding the Design Guidelines for Commercial Historic Properties and provide Staff with any additional commentary on the document.
The Commissioners discussed the difficulty in knowing what additions and corrections had been made from the prior discussions as there were no indications of such changes. They stated due to the length of the document it would be an advantage to know what changes were being made.
Ms. Lew stated due to the continual refinement of the document it would be difficult to document the changes to the document but she would see what could be done.
Chairperson Oliver asked for Ms. Lew to review the major changes to the document in the past two weeks.
Ms. Lew stated it was mainly the edits to photographs.
Chairperson Oliver asked about some of the corrections and additions she had suggested regarding “Modern” terminology.
Ms. Lew stated she was still working on those corrections as the present document was to address the photograph edits. She stated she did not know if the discussion regarding “modern” terms could be addressed at this time due to the tight time schedule.
Chairperson Oliver stated at least the “Modern” style type needed to be added and could be broke out at a later time. She stated the “New Construction” section was written in a way to indicate only traditional buildings would be constructed and she thought there needed to be more room for modern styles. She reviewed the sections that needed to be addressed regarding the facades of commercial buildings (13.12, 13.14 and 13.16).
Ms. Lew stated the design guideline focused on the aspect that foundation material just stopped at the corner and did not continue around the building.
Chairperson Oliver stated the language needed to be clarified.
Commissioner James stated it depended on the building type and location. He stated if that was the way architecture was evolving with the codes, light access and building scale, he did not know if it could be applied in the same way. He stated it was almost like some of the suburban houses where the brick stops at the corner.
Chairperson Oliver stated there would be instances for both and the standard needed to be flexible enough to address both designs. She said the Commission could not say that every building had to have a wrap, some should and some should not but the language needed to be there maybe with bullet points addressing each issue and the guidelines.
The Commissioners stated they would send their comments to Ms. Lew. They stated the basics looked good but some things needed more detail and definition which their comments would help with. They stated there would always be additions and changes that needed to be addressed but overall the document was headed in the right direction.
Commissioner Richards stated his biggest concern was that there were the guidelines and then the City Ordinance and it seemed that someone reading the information should know that the ordinance was the law and the guidelines were there to help meet the law.
The Commissioners asked Ms. Lew for a summary of the changes to the document to be sent for the next meeting instead of sending the whole document.
PUBLIC HEARING 8:34:46 PM
Chairperson Oliver opened the Public Hearing. Seeing there was no one present to speak on the issue the Public Hearing was closed.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 8:35:16 PM
MOTION 8:35:17 PM
Commissioner Funk moved in the case of PLNPCM2009-00628 the Historic Landmark Commission direct Staff to continue the Public Hearing on the Commercial Design Guidelines. Commissioner Hart seconded the motion. Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Funk, Harding, James and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 7-0 vote, Chairperson Oliver did not vote.
8:36:22 PM
PLNPCM2011-00471 Revisions to the Residential Design Guidelines for Historic Districts and Landmark Sites - A petition initiated by Mayor Ralph Becker to revise the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City regulated by the H Historic Overlay Zone. The design guidelines have been used since 1999 providing advice to owners and applicants, and serving as review and decision-making criteria for the public, the Commission and Staff. They will be revised to reflect historic preservation design guidelines best practice in organization, clarity, and current issues.
Mr. Carl Leith, Senior Planner reviewed the changes to the document as outlined in the Staff Report.
Revisions have been made to the organization and refinement of the Preservation in Salt Lake City introductory chapter, including the format example diagrams in how to use the design guidelines. Additional material will be required to expand the introductory coverage to include Commercial and Signs.
Some refinements and corrections have been made to the text throughout, with the completion of some notation for several diagrams and drawings.
Revisions to the text include many but not all comments made at this point.
A first draft of the Glossary is available with this draft. This will be further supplemented and revised to serve as a joint resource for the three sets of design guidelines.
Mr. Leith stated Staff recommended the Commission consider the second draft in detail, forward thoughts and comments to Staff to inform the further and final draft of the document and continue the Public Hearing and review to the meeting on December 15. He stated a Subcommittee meeting was scheduled for Monday, December 5, at 9:00 a.m. to review the document further. He thanked the Commission for their time and help with updating the document.
The Commissioners said they would give their changes and comments to Mr. Leith to review in time for the Monday meeting. They discussed the organization of the introduction section and moving the general information to the beginning of the document with the specific information following. They asked Mr. Leith to provide a summary of the major changes to the document for the next meeting.
Chairperson Oliver asked if more information was available to address multifamily housing.
Mr. Leith explained that information was taken out of the presented document and would be a separate document with its own design guidelines, as it was a key building type across the city.
PUBLIC HEARING 8:58:34 PM
Chairperson Oliver opened the Public Hearing. Seeing there was no one present to speak on the issue the Public Hearing was closed.
EXECUTIVE SESSON 8:58:40 PM
MOTION 8:58:43 PM
Commissioner Funk moved in the case of PLNPCM2011-00471 the Historic Landmark Commission continue the Public Hearing until December 15, 2011, with the revisions suggested to the Staff. Commissioner Hart seconded the motion. Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Funk, Harding, James and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 7-0 vote, Chairperson Oliver did not vote.
Commissioner James asked if aligning preservation with complete streets and traffic engineering had been or was currently being discussed in the City. He stated the conversation regarding the role of streets and their contribution to the physical context of traditional neighborhoods was going on around the country. He said he wanted to know if there was any opportunity to engage Traffic Engineering or City Planning in a conversation regarding this topic.
Commissioner Funk stated she could not answer for the current status but in the past the Transportation Department did not care.
Commissioner James explained in alternatives around the country Traffic Engineers had found that they were not as successful at moving cars as they once thought. He said there were other developed standards that addressed issues resulting in friendlier streets and the removal of the barriers to street friendly urbanism, architecture and historic preservation.
Commissioner Funk stated she thought it was very appropriate but in the past it was not something anyone wanted to deal with. She stated it was worth pursuing again because it was critical to the preservation of the people who lived on the street, the houses that were there and the developing character.
Commissioner James stated the National Association of Traffic Engineers published a new a complete streets manual that address and provide new standards and alternatives when dealing with traffic.
Ms. Coffey stated the City had adopted a complete streets ordinance and Staff would ask the Transportation Director to attend a work session to exchange ideas.
Commissioner James stated as the Commission projected a vision for the City that if Preservation, Planning and Traffic Engineering could be in step with each other it might mitigate potential conflicts.
Commissioner Hart stated there was a new Director of Transportation starting in January and taking over in February and it would be nice to have her come to a meeting.
Chairperson Oliver asked if it was something that could be scheduled for the January meeting or after all of the ordinance documents were finished.
Ms. Coffey stated she would check into it.
The meeting stood adjourned at 9:04:12 PM