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 Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Joel Paterson, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Wayne Gordon, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Rob McFarland, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Sarah Miller and Robert Payne were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chairperson, Dina Blaes. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Blaes asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the November 18, 1998 meeting. It was seconded by Ms. Rowland. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 030-98. at 250 No. Almond Street. by Russ Watts of Almond Street
Properties. L.C., requesting to construct a 17-unit condominium development.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She said that according to the RMF-45 zoning, when individual buildings will have street frontage, an applicant would not have to go through a Planned Development process. Mr. Parvaz proposed a question regarding the acreage. Ms. Giraud said that the applicant verified that the property comprised 1.428 acres.
Mr. Russ Watts, the applicant, was present. He displayed a sample board of the exterior materials and described the project in the following manner:
1. There would be a total of seventeen separate townhouse units with two-car garages having single separate doors;
2. Eight units would be on Almond Street and nine units would be on West
Temple;
3. There would be no entering onto or exiting off of 300 North;
4. There would be two visitor parking spaces in front of the garages for each unit;
5. Part of the structure would be cantilevered to partially hide the garage doors and the buildings would be stepped to separate the garage doors;
6. The principal living quarters would be on the main level with bedrooms on the upper level and a recreation room and extra bedrooms on the lower level for most units;
7. Williamsburg wood molded bricks in the red tones would be used on the exterior;
8. Black/gray wood windows with wood casements would be used;
9. Some non-shiny copper elements would be used on the exterior in the brownish tones highlighting the entries and the dormers;
10. A Dryvit system would be used on the exterior in green tones;
11. Some of the gable ends would have the same color of wood siding as the synthetic stucco;
12. The roof would be slate colored asphalt;
13. The railings on the back of the units would be gunstock gray; and
14. A cut and fill system would balance out the project so there would not be a need for heavy trucks on the premises carrying fill dirt; and
15. With the City's permission, there would be a change in the public right-of-way on West Temple and 300 North. West Temple would curve around what had been an island and join 300 North. The island would be landscaped in common with the rest of the project.
Mr. Watts said that the project complied with the current zoning and pointed out that he wanted to follow the architectural and design direction of the Historic Landmark Commission and make the project work for the neighborhood and the historic district.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission
• Ms. Deal inquired about the change in elevation and the rear loading feature which was drawn on the site plan. Mr. Watts said that on the four southern units on West Temple, the garages would be in the rear, with gables in the roof and valleys in between. Ms. Deal asked for clarification regarding the landscaping and the hard surfaces between the units. She discouraged the use of Palladian windows and encouraged a deep profile for all the windows. Ms. Deal said that the roofline would break up the massing but suggested separating the building on Almond Street and allow view corridors which would alleviate a total "wall" effect on that street.
• Mr. Parvaz commented further about the same four units. Mr. Watts said that all three levels would be exposed on the West Temple elevation. Mr. Parvaz said that there did not appear to be plans for the rear elevations of the units on West Temple showing the four garages. Mr. Parvaz also spoke of the proposed changes in the public right-of-way.
• Mr. Littig discussed the grade changes and the possibility of placing more garages in the rear of the units so they would not have street exposure. Mr. Watts said that could be studied further. There was some discussion regarding tandem parking.
Mr. Watts said that he proposed that idea in his original project for this property and discovered that the zoning would not allow for tandem parking. Mr. Littig suggested allowing for a park strip between the road and the sidewalk, where trees could be planted, where possible. Mr. Watts said that the proposal could be discussed with the City's Engineers. Mr. Wright said that it was preferable to have some space between the road and the pedestrian sidewalk. Mr. Littig also expressed his concern for the amount of curb cuts that would be needed to access all the garages.
• Ms. Mitchell spoke of the shed and dormer windows. Ms. Deal suggested that the combination would be compatible with this large project. Mr. Watts said the intention was to break up the elevations.
• Mr. Owen suggested the use of evergreen trees in the landscaping. Mr. Watts said that he would confer with the City's Urban Forester for the types of trees that would be indigenous to the area.
Ms. Blaes 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. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, stated that she was speaking in behalf of the Capitol Hill Community Council and the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association. She said that she believed that the City made a mistake when this subject property was not zoned "Open Space", which had been the wish of the council because of the proximity of the warm springs fault and the parking situation in the area.
Ms. Mangold said that she believed that Mr. Watts had addressed most of the issues in the design of this project that the neighborhood had with his prior proposals, such as the reduction in the number of units, the massiveness of the buildings, providing parking for tenants and visitors, and the protection from potential damage of the historic homes in the area by eliminating many of the heavy earth-moving trucks. She said that the neighborhood liked the varying heights and setbacks of the building on Almond Street which would break up the massive "one wall" look, incorporating the island into the landscaping of the project, and the wood windows. Ms. Mangold questioned the use of so many different exterior materials, but said she did not feel competent to address that issue. In conclusion, Ms. Mangold said that this was a project that "they could live with".
Mr. Joe Pitti, who resides at 325 No. Quince Street, stated that he supported the statements by Ms. Mangold. He suggested eliminating some of the elements in the design of the buildings and the use of the variety of exterior materials. Mr. Pitti said that he liked the idea of a park strip between the road and the sidewalk and the allowance for tenant and visitor parking.
Upon hearing no further requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Ms. Blaes reminded the members that any new construction project was first reviewed by the full Commission. She pointed out that staff did not include findings of fact or a recommendation in the staff report. Ms. Blaes discussed the options the Historic Landmark Commission had after reviewing the case. A short discussion followed regarding the amount of garage doors exposed to the street, the use of alternative materials for the hardscape areas, and the plausibility of more rear garages by the City granting a hardship variance to shorten the front setbacks. Some members of the Commission expressed their concerns about the project lacking "people presence" and having a "suburban" rather than an "urban" feeling because of the dominance of the automobile. The discussion continued.
Ms. Deal moved to conceptionally approve Case No.030-98 and table it pending resolution of the following issues which could be reviewed in the Architectural Subcommittee, then returned to the full Commission for final approval: 1) reduce the amount of hardscape; 2) the materials of the hardscape; 3) reduce the massing or separating the massing of the project on Almond Street; 4) exterior lighting and the effect it would have in the neighborhood; 5) window details; and 6) railing details. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
Ms. Giraud suggested amending the motion to include the need to have elevation drawings of the west elevation on the Almond Street building because that elevation would be very visible and the east elevation of the building on West Temple. Ms. Blaes said she was concerned about granting an conceptional approval because it was misleading and not based on findings of fact. The motion was amended.
Ms. Deal moved to table Case No. 030-98 pending resolution of the following issues which could be reviewed in the Architectural Subcommittee, then returned to the full Commission for final approval: 1) reduce the amount of hardscape; 2) the materials of the hardscape; 3) reduce the massing or separating the massing of the project on Almond Street; 4) exterior lighting and the affect it would have in the neighborhood; 5) window details; 6) railing details; 7) garage door materials; 8) a drawing of the view of the building on Almond Street looking up from the west elevation; and 9) a drawing of the east elevation of the building on West Temple. The second still stood by Mr. Young. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig and Ms. Rowland were opposed. Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Ms. Miller and Mr. Payne were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Continuation of the discussion on an amendment to the zoning ordinance regarding administrative approvals.
Ms. Blaes inquired about having an enforcement officer present to discuss this issue with the Commission. Ms. Giraud said Mr. Craig Spangenberg, who directs the enforcement officers, was not available for this meeting.
Ms. Giraud familiarized the members of the Commission on several enforcement issues. The conversation focused on an enforcement case at 587 E. First Avenue, regarding the installation of illegal awnings, balustrades, front steps material, fence posts, and so forth, which was eventually dismissed in court. Ms. Giraud said that the owner did eventually comply with the enforcement issues except for the awnings. She said that the property had been resold, so the encumbrance would remain not allowing a clear title to the property for the new owners.
Mr. Knight reported on an enforcement case on the vacant lot north of 610 North 300 West. He said that the enforcement officer could not enforce landscaping issues during the winter months of the year, so it will be followed up in the Spring. Mr. Knight said that the owner will be informed and enforcement action taken to eliminate vehicular parking on that vacant lot.
Ms. Blaes said that she believed the Historic Landmark Commission was to receive an opinion from the City Attorney's office on "routine and uncontested matters" which falls under administrative approvals. Mr. Paterson said that he spoke with Mr. Lynn Pace in the City Attorney's office and he was not able to write an opinion on this matter at this time.
Ms. Giraud stated that the zoning ordinance would be going through a "fine-tuning" process and it was recommended that the fees would be reduced from $200.00 to $25.00 that an applicant has to pay to have a project reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. She said that it would be easier for an applicant to come before the full Commission on some questionable or controversial cases. A discussion took place regarding using a scale to determine the fees for a project.
Continuation of the discussion on housing issues in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Blaes said that the outline created by the Commission concerning the housing issues was submitted to City Council Member Carlton Christensen. Mr. Wright reported that the City Council appointed a subcommittee and will continue to meet regarding this matter.
Mr. Wright stated that he plans to follow-up on the Commission's budget request for $300,000 in funds to be used for preservation issues. He suggested that he would need the support of the members at some future date.
Memorandum regarding documentation for a demolition request.
Ms. Blaes introduced a memorandum written by Mr. Parvaz regarding the subject of "Documentation for applications for the demolition or relocation of structures in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District". Copies were circulated to the members and a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
Mr. Parvaz spoke of an issue that was raised in a recent Commission meeting. He pointed out that in Title 21A.34.020.(F)(1)(c) and (F)(2)(c) of the Salt Lake City Code, it states that the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall include photographs, construction drawings, and other documentation such as an architectural or massing model, window frame sections and samples deemed necessary to consider the application properly and completely. He said that it also states that applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition shall also submit a reuse plan for the property.
Mr. Parvaz said he believed that applicants were confused with this section of the ordinance because the items were not enumerated clearly. He said that emphasizes should be on the applicant to provide the documentation before a building was demolished. Mr. Parvaz said that documentation of a structure is requested by City code and the Commission must comply. He explained that he believed that documentation was an important matter as he continued to discuss the contents of his memo.
The Commission members explored the pros and cons of the suggestions made by Mr. Parvaz. Suggestions were made that electronically prepared data might not be a necessary item. Other required materials as outlined in the proposal was discussed.
Ms. Giraud said that case files were retained in the Planning Office and available for public use. She said that she would contact sources to find out if documentation of the type suggested in the memo would be accepted. She said that the information should be accessible to the public from an established archive like the University of Utah. Mr. Young said that he believed that the archive at the State Historic Preservation Office might better serve the public.
Ms. Blaes indicated that she believed it was appropriate for the ordinance to require some kind of documentation to be provided by an applicant when demolition was approved. She said that she supported Mr. Parvaz's suggestions with a few refinements for demolition requests.
Mr. Wright stated that when that particular section of the ordinance was written, the idea was that the application should include photographs, construction drawings, and other documentation "deemed necessary". He said that the other documentation, such as massing models and window frame sections, was optional and not required with every application.
In conclusion, Mr. Wright said that the language of the City code should be more clearly defined for demolition and reuse purposes by structuring sentences that would give the Commission the discretion to determine when the additional requirements may be applied so there would be less confusion in interpreting the ordinance.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:35P.M.