SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Pete Ashdown, Warren Lloyd, Noreen Heid, Scott Christensen, David Fitzsimmons, Vicki Mickelsen, Janice Lew and Joel Paterson.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Vicki Mickelsen, Chair; Pete Ashdown, Vice Chair; Noreen Heid, Scott Christensen, Warren Lloyd, David Fitzsimmons and Soren Simonsen.
Present from the Planning Staff were Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Programs Supervisor; Elizabeth Giraud, Senior Planner; Janice Lew, Principal Planner; Lex Traughber, Principal Planner and Louise Harris, Senior Secretary.
The meeting was called to order by Vicki Mickelsen, Chair at 4:10 p.m. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item on the agenda would be followed in the order as written. At this time Ms. Mickelsen asked if anyone wanted to address the Commission on matters not on the agenda. With no response, she moved to the next item.
Report of the Planning Director
Mr. Alex Ikefuna indicated that he wanted to update the Commission on the Reconnaissance Surveys that the Planning Division was awarded grants for. The request for proposals are:
• South Temple Historic District from Third East to University Street. There are approxin1ately 155 structures.
• Capitol Hill Historic District will include approximately 830 structures.
These two projects are scheduled to be completed sometime in September 2006. Progress reports will be provided periodically to the Commission.
He also reported that staff has completed the application for the Preserve America grant and the City Council adopted a resolution in support. In addition, Staff met with a representative of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). At the meeting, discussion focused on the need for SHPO and the City's preservation staff to work together on supporting tax credit programs, and upcoming grant opportunities which could provide $6,000.00 to Salt Lake City for Historic Preservation education programs or some more neighborhood service projects. A copy of the Compatible Residential Infill Ordinance standards has been given to each member of the Commission and he hopes that if there are any questions the Commission will work with Staff. Mr. Ikefuna asked Ms. Coffey to review the HLC Case 028-04 Cathedral Church of Saint Marks and Mr. Paterson to ask the Commission for some direction concerning use of solar panels in the Historic Districts.
Ms. Coffey indicated that the Cathedral of Saint Marks came to the Commission last May and the Commission approved their project. The applicant is asking to modify the original approval to allow the west wall of the food bank to be constructed with cast concrete instead of sandstone. Dwight Nicholson, architect, was there to represent the Cathedral. Ms. Coffey asked if the Commission wished to review the proposed change or allow Staff to approve it administratively.
Mr. Ashdown asked if this is straight-cast concrete without color.
Ms. Coffey said that this is just a modification of what was originally approved by the Landmarks Commission. The Commission originally approved a design where three sides would be cast concrete and the west side, the most visible and closest to the Cathedral, would be sandstone. Now they are asking that the west side be cast concrete as well.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked why they wanted the change. Ms. Coffey indicated that it was mostly a financial issue. Mr. Nicholson replied that it was financial.
Mr. Christensen inquired as to what type of concrete was proposed.
Mr. Nicholson said it has rustication lines so it is architectural-grade concrete. It would not be colored or have the small holes for reinforcing the tie bars. The rest of it is detailed and beveled to line up with the doors, windows, and headers. It matches the other three sides. They decided not to erect the sandstone wall between the Cathedral and the parking lot as a garden wall and have put up a rod iron fence primarily for cost.
Mr. Lloyd asked if the Commission was to review this or were they reviewing it for modification to the approved plans.
Ms. Coffey indicated it was a modification to the approved plans. The staff has looked at this and indicated that the staff could make the approval but thought the Commission would rather make the decision. This could also be scheduled for a public hearing if the Commission thought it should.
Mr. Ikefuna indicated that this could be presented next month or in February if it is necessary but the issue is that staff did not want to stretch their authority by making that decision.
Mr. Ashdown moved to have a public hearing. Mr. Fitzsimmons seconded. Discussion:
Mr. Nicholson, indicated that time is of the essence. For them their food bank will vacate its present site on January 315t. They don't want to be out of business long and will put the sandstone back on instead of waiting for a hearing in January. It will cost them $14,000.00 but they will go with the approved plan.
A discussion followed as to whether or not this request should be heard by the
Commission at a public hearing.
Ms. Coffey indicated that staff believed that this was a big enough change, that they should ask the Commission if it was something they would delegate to staff to approve.
Mr. Ashdown retracted his motion.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked that they just approve it as long as the staff is comfortable with the change. He said that he was not objecting to the change, it is the process he is objecting to.
Mr. Simonsen moved that in Case Number 028-04 regarding the Food Bank accessory structure on the site, given the previous findings of the Commission to approve the material on three other sides and given this is not the primary facade of the building, the modification being proposed is within the purview of the administrative approval. Mr. Lloyd seconded. Mr. Lloyd, Ms. Heid and Mr. Simonsen voted “Aye” to approve. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen and Mr. Fitzsimmons voted “nay” not to approve. There being a tie, the Chair, Ms. Mickelsen broke the tie with a favor of the motion vote.
The motion passed.
It was suggested by Ms. Mickelsen and Mr. Ashdown that some guidelines be set so this type of situation does not happen again.
Mr. Joel Paterson indicated that Staff has recently been receiving requests about the Landmarks Commission policies on solar panels. There are not specific guidelines on how to review them. Staff is asking the Commission if they would like some policies developed and brought back to the Commission for adoption. A request has been received from Mr. Alex Steckel, 269 “N” Street, proposing to put an array of solar panels on his roof. The panels would be located 30 feet behind the gable facing the street. The panels will be mounted flush onto the roof. The dimensions of the panels are 4' x 8'x 3”. The profile will be similar to a roof-mounted skylight. Staff asked for direction from the Commission on whether this project could be reviewed administratively or if a hearing should be scheduled. He passed out brochures with examples. He asked for some direction to develop a policy dealing with solar panels.
Ms. Michelsen asked if staff was receiving a lot of requests.
Mr. Paterson indicated that several requests have come in for homes in the historic districts.
Mr. Lloyd thought some type of guideline was needed. He didn't think the Design
Guidelines had anything relating to this issue.
Ms. Giraud said the Design Guidelines mention solar panels along with skylights. The staff has talked about this but not had enough time to do research to find out the newest technology in solar development.
Mr. Christensen felt that the case that is pending has enough issues that it should be brought before the Landmark Commission. It would help the Commission to understand the issues.
Mr. Paterson felt that the guidelines do need to be updated. He suggested a sub committee be set up with the Commission. Staff could do some research and come back to the subcommittee with proposed language. Whatever they came up with would be reviewed and adopted by the Commission.
Ms. Mickelsen suggested that this matter be brought back under Other Business at the end of the meeting. It was agreed.
Approval of Minutes
October 5 and November 7, 2005.
Mr. Simonsen moved to approve the October 5, 2005, minutes and seconded by Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Christensen voted “Aye”. Mr. Ashdown and Ms. Heid abstained. Motion passed.
Mr. Lloyd moved to approve the November 7, 2005, minutes and Mr. Ashdown seconded. Ms. Heid, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Ashdown voted “Aye”. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Christensen abstained. Ms. Mickelsen, Chair moved to approve and the motion passed.
Public Hearings
Case No. 030-05 at 12 South 400 West. by Blues at the Depot represented by Snell & Wilmer. LLP. to install a gate logo sign for a new nightclub/restaurant. The sign is to be located adjacent to the east facade of the north wing of the Union Pacific Building. This building is listed as a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Mr. Traughber presented the findings and facts and Staff's recommendation. The Depot and the surrounding property is zoned G-MU, Gateway Mixed Use. The proposed sign is a “Gate Logo Sign” which the City considers to be a “pole sign”. Pole signs are not allowed in the G-MU zone however, can be considered as a special exception requiring review and approval by the Board of Adjustment, based on a positive recommendation of the Historic Landmark Commission. The Board of Adjustment will hear this request on December 19, 2005.
The proposed sign is technically a pole sign with two support legs. The supports are to be made of steel in a lattice type formation and painted black. The upper portion of the sign will be composed of white neon lettering. Each letter will be of “channel” type
construction and the neon tubing will be located within the “channel” of each letter. The guitar pick logo will also be neon (red and blue) with the background painted black.
Mr. Christensen asked about the back side of the logo. Mr. Traughber thought the applicant could answer that better.
Mr. Christensen asked if there were more clever ways this could be done. It won't have the grooved plastic channel that lettering slides into. It looks like a mini mart on that particular part of the sign.
Ms. Mickelsen asked about item 3 of the staff report:
• “The Historic Landmark Commission considers the request for a sign in the context of the owner's comprehensive (total) signage plan for the building. For office/commercial uses, only one building identification sign will be approved by the Historic Landmark Commission. Tenants should be identified in an interior building directory.”
Ms. Giraud indicated that the signage policy was designed for commercial buildings that have retail on the first floor of the building and residential above. It does not apply to buildings that are like Gateway or Trolley Square.
Ms. Coffey further indicated that this is a policy and if the Commission finds that it is appropriate to not follow that policy for whatever reason, they should give that reason and make findings to that effect.
A copy of the Staff Report is filed with these minutes.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any more questions for Staff. If not, the applicant can come forward.
Mr. David Cumming, of Union Pacific Depot (one of the Owners of the project); Kim Thomas, of Yesco Sign Company; and Deanne Leatherman came forward. The applicants asked the Commission to forward a positive recommendation to the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if there would be any other signs coming to the Commission for approval in reference to this project.
Ms. Thomas indicated that the only other item would be interior hanging signs for the restaurant. There will be a neon sign hanging above the door from inside the window. There will be one blade sign that is at the back entrance that is not visible from any street. A permit has been obtained for this sign.
Ms. Giraud indicated it was probably approved administratively because of its size. Ms. Thomas indicated the sign has a 10-foot clearance at the door. The picture is accurate to the scale of the plans.
Ms. Coffey indicated that if the Commission does approve the sign, they can state that the top of the sign should not be any taller than the ridge line of the lighter brick.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any more questions. Ms. Mickelsen asked about the shield part of the sign and where the neon is located. Ms. Thomas indicated the white is not neon because at night the sign would read strange. It will be plate cut and sit in front of the neon so the neon will create a halo effect behind the letters.
Ms. Mickelsen thanked the applicants and asked if anyone in the public would like to speak. Seeing none, the Commission moved into Executive Session.
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved that in Case No. 030-05 that the Commission make a positive recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to approve the special exception for the sign based on the findings of fact in the staff report. Mr. Ashdown seconded. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Lloyd all voted “Aye”. There were no abstentions and the motion passed.
Case No. 031-05 at 180 'T' Street. by Sandra Hatch representing Suzi Mang. requesting approval to construct a roof addition. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Giraud presented the findings of fact and Staff recommendation. The proposed work is being referred to the Commission for review because of the proposed alterations to the existing roofline. This case has been in the making for about 1 % years and the owners made several changes have been made to the plans. The owners have a new architect, Sandra Hatch, and they are proposing to reconstruct the roof to accommodate additional space in the attic. To accommodate this, the applicants are proposing to widen the gable currently over the large, fixed window on the west (front) elevation and over the main living space at the existing pitch. To achieve the desired height and space they proposed to raise the roof and created side-gables a third of the way back from the front of the house. The new side gables, and those in the front and rear, would be clad with board-and-batten Hardiboard, which has been approved by the Commission and Planning Division Staff. The rear of the house would be expanded to include an upper-story deck, a bedroom, bathroom, mudroom and back porch. As with the front and side gables, the rear gables would also be clad with Hardiboard panels in a board and batten pattern.
The front porch is proposed to be expanded to extend halfway across the front of the house. The wrought-iron rails will be replaced with wood posts and a wood balustrade.
Staff recommends approval of the project as proposed and further recommends that final approval be delegated to Staff if any minor revisions or additional details are required by the Commission.
A copy of the Staff Report is filed with these minutes.
Ms. Mickelsen invited the property owners to come forward. Sandi Hatch, Architect and Mr. Mang, property owner, came forward. Ms. Hatch presented a model of the home showing how it will look when completed.
Ms. Mickelsen asked what is under the aluminum.
Ms. Hatch indicated that there is a porch in the back that is sided with aluminum siding and it is not in good shape.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if anyone had any more questions. She asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing and the Commission went into Executive Session.
Mr. Christensen indicated he enjoyed having the three dimensional model. It was helpful in the way he was seeing the home.
Mr. Simonson indicated that this is not a contributing structure and asked if it were reviewed as such.
Ms. Giraud indicated that she did review it as a contributing structure because it is more than 50 years old and has a lot of its original integrity and that integrity imparts the fact that it's one of numerous post-war residences in the Avenues Historic District. These houses are now old enough to have a lot of history associated with them.
Ms. Coffey said the issue is whether the changes to the front porch and the roof line are in keeping with that style of architectural design of the home if they are then it's appropriate to approve this request. The changes will need to be consistent with that period of architecture.
Ms. Heid moved that in Case No. 031-05 the Commission accepts the staff report and findings of fact and approve the project as proposed. Furthermore Ms. Heid recommends that additional approval be delegated to staff if there are revisions or changes to the plans as presented. Mr. Christensen seconded.
Discussion: Mr. Simonsen asked if that would be minor modifications to details.
Ms. Heid indicated yes, it would.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the change in the facade is adequate in the description.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there was any more discussion. If not, she would call for a vote. Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid and Mr. Ashdown all voted “Aye”. No one opposed the motion and there was one abstention; Mr. Simonsen. The motion passed.
At this time Mr. Ashdown left the meeting.
Case No. 032-05 at Liberty Park. Dell Cook of Salt Lake City Engineering Division is requesting approval for additional directional. identity and venue signage in Liberty Park. Liberty Park is listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Giraud indicated that additional signage is needed in the park including additional parking signs, directional identifier signs, as easy drive signs, orientation maps, venue banners and identity banners. The venue banners would be on separate poles and placed at the six different venues. The identity banners would be hung from the light standards and then also on poles at the corners of the park. Because pole signs, drive signs and orientation maps are recycled Olympics signs, they were too high and the zoning ordinance would not allow them. Staff took this to the City Council and City Council made changes to the “Open Space” requirements allowing these kinds of signs in parks 28 acres or greater.
A copy of the Staff Report is filed with these minutes.
Mr. Christensen asked if there were old signs that needed to be saved that are over 50 years old.
Ms. Giraud indicated that Mr. Cook, the applicant, probably knew that answer. Mr. Lloyd asked what regulations were added to the sign ordinance.
Ms. Giraud indicated that signs can go from 8 feet to 10 feet for the monument signs. The orientation maps and entry drive signs are essential monument. Park banner signs for permanent venues are essentially pole signs. The other one is identified banners for parks and venues within the park.
Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant, Mr. Dell Cook of the Salt Lake Engineering Division to come forward.
He indicated that the park for first time users, is very difficult to become oriented to and find facilities. When going into the park one could be on one side and not know where venues are. One must enter on the right side of the park to be able to conveniently access some of the venues. He stated for example, most people don't know that the Chase Home is a Folk Art Museum. They also aren't aware that the North Shelter is the “Youth City Building” for children's after school program. These things need to be better identified as people enter or leave the park. Permanent venues need this type of identity. Each venue would have a color and that color would be listed on the identity banner making it easy to find even without reading anything. They are in strong support of this program as it would be a great addition to making the park more user friendly for people in the city.
Mr. Christensen asked if there were any signs in the park with historic value.
Mr. Cook mentioned the large pillars at the entrance on 900 South. They will not be removed and have been restored.
Ms. Heid asked about the ability to circle the park rather than driving in and out.
Mr. Cook indicated that the parks management will not open the gates because there are too many problems like vandalism and kids cruising.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if this plan was to be considered in other parks as well.
Mr. Cook indicated that this is not specific to Liberty Park. It became more necessary for this park than anywhere else. Some of the same issues exist at Jordan Park and the Peace Garden. They have asked for this to be funded as “Wayfinding” at the large parks. There are only five parks of this size that would be considered for this “Wayfinding” program. He indicated that they always go through the community councils as well as the planning staff to make sure they are on the right track when pursuing building permits.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if anyone in the public wanted to address the Commission about this issue. Since there were none, she closed the Public Hearing and went into the Executive Session.
Ms. Giraud indicated that when this went to the City Council the Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Heid asked if the recycled Olympic Signs was driving the size of the signs.
Ms. Giraud replied with yes and also the individual venue signs and park banners are as well. Ms. Mickelsen then asked for a motion.
Mr. Christensen moved that in Case 032-05 that the Landmarks Commission approve the Signage package and Wayfinding program that has been proposed in this meeting and represented in the staff report. It was seconded by Ms. Heid. Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Christensen and Ms. Heid all voted “Aye”. No one abstained. The motion passed.
Case No. 025-05 at 522 East Fourth Avenue. by Scott Hinton. requesting approval to construct an accessory structure in the rear yard. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Lew presented the case with the findings of fact and Staff recommendation. There is a two story rectangular block type home with a recessed side entry located on the property. In February 2004 a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued to remove the fiber cement siding on the exterior of the house and restore the original drop siding. More recent work to the property has been completed to renovate the entire home. The applicant is now requesting to build a 370 square foot 1 % story detached garage. The upper level would be used for storage. It will have a cross gable asphalt shingled roof that rises to approximately twenty-two feet to the peak. The primary wall material would be wood and will match the siding on the home. It would have aluminum clad wood windows, wood doors and a double wide garage door with simulated panels. Based on the finding in the report, Staff recommended approval with the conditions as outlined in the Staff Report.
A copy of the Staff Report is filed with the minutes. Mr. Christensen asked about the garage door.
Ms. Lew indicated that the architect could better answer that. The garage is accessible from a right-of-way and won't be highly visible from the street.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the Commission has any more questions. If not, the applicant was invited to come forward.
Mr. Dave Brock represented the applicant Mr. Scott Hinton.
Mr. Christensen asked what material would be used on the soffit and facia and the garage door.
Mr. Brock indicated the soffit and facia would be painted wood essentially to match the siding and the garage door is simulated frame and panel painted.
Ms. Heid asked about the space accessible by the outside stairs and whether it is just additional storage.
Mr. Brock indicated the second level is only storage and only accessible from the stairs.
Mr. Lloyd wanted to know about paving the area and asked if there were additional parking spaces.
Mr. Brock indicated that east of the lot line about 1/3 portion of the driveway would be paved. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked how deep the building will be.
Ms. Lew indicated that he could build an accessory structure whether it is used for parking or not. There is no requirement of him to provide parking.
Mr. Lloyd asked about accessing the garage and the intent of paving the other area outside the lot lines. He asked if there will be encroachment onto the neighboring property.
Ms. Lew indicated the applicant has an access agreement with the adjacent property owners. Mr. Lloyd asked if the garage was twenty-two feet high.
Ms. Lew indicated it is seventeen feet to the mid-point and meets code requirements. She indicated that there was a much smaller structure there at one time. She said that it is within the limits of the Commission to limit the height of the structure justified with additional findings.
Mr. Christensen asked what the roof pitch of the house was. Mr. Broke indicated it has a 12:12 pitch.
Ms. Michelsen asked how high the house was.
Mr. Brock wasn't sure but it is three stories and slopes down in the back. The garage is on grade and the first floor of the house is 4 to 5 feet above grade and there are two stories above that.
With no more questions for Mr. Brock, Ms. Mickelsen asked the public to come forward.
Mr. Michael Ryan came forward. He owns the four-plex in front of the garage and he also owns both driveways that will provide access to the new garage. There is a north driveway and a south driveway and he is providing Mr. Hinton with a right-of-way over both driveways. Three of the units have primary entrances on the south driveway. Mr. Ryan indicated he was in favor of this project and intended to improve the carport that is there.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if the added height in the back will impact him in any way. Mr. Ryan indicated that it wouldn't
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were further questions. Seeing none, she closed the Public Hearing and the Commission moved into Executive Session.
Mr. Lloyd indicated that he was concerned about the relationship of the garage to the house. It seems arbitrarily tall given the width and in looking at the photo provided by Ms. Lew it doesn't seem like the existing house has a 12:12 roof pitch. It looks different than what is provided on the garage.
Ms. Mickelsen asked what the height limit of the storage would be.
Mr. Fitzsimmons indicated the mid point of the roof is 16'10”, the floor is 9'2” so that would be 7'8”.
Ms. Mickelsen closed the Executive Session and reopened the Public Hearing so Mr. Brock could speak.
Mr. Brock indicated that he is very sure the pitch is 12:12. Their intent is to match the roof pitch of the garage of the house.
Ms. Mickelsen asked whether the garage needs to be that tall.
Mr. Lloyd said that the functionality of the storage area could be a primary east-west gable on the narrow section and a lower gable on the north-south axis.
Ms. Coffey indicated that in light of the issues of the Compatible lnfill Ordinance, the Landmark Districts as an overlay, governs these issues, but in instances where a garage is allowed to be higher, a finding needs to be made justifying the height.
The Public Hearing was closed and Executive Session reopened. Ms. Mickelsen asked if there was any more discussion.
Mr. Fitzsimmons moved to approve Case No. 025-05, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the approval request of the accessory structure at 522 East Fourth Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
• Review the final details of the design of the proposed project including any concerns or suggestions expressed by the Commission shall be delegated to Planning Staff. The Historic Landmark Commission recommends that the 12:12 pitch of the accessory structure be changed to match the actual pitch of the roof of the house
• This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other City applicable requirements.
• Any changes to approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Historic
Landmark Commission or Planning Staff.
• All lots comprising the residential use shall be consolidated into one lot before a building permit is issued.
Mr. Simonsen seconded. Discussion:
Mr. Lloyd asked for clarification as to whether the garage roof pitch cannot exceed the roof pitch of the house.
Mr. Simonsen indicated that if the house roof has a 12:12 pitch then the design will be approved as it is.
Mr. Lloyd asked about the 16:12 roof pitch.
Mr. Fitzsimmons amended the motion to read the 16:12 pitch be lowered so the peak is no higher than the east-west ridge of the roof.
Ms. Mickelsen called for a vote:
Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid and Mr. Simonsen voted “Aye”. Mr. Lloyd voted against. No one abstained. The motion passed.
Case No. 028-05 at 669 East Third Avenue. by Doris and Gilberte Schaefer. requesting approval to construct an accessory structure in the rear yard. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Lew presented the case as a two-story Victorian Eclectic home with a hip roof and projecting front base. The Schaefers would like to construct a new accessory structure toward the rear of the property. The Board of Adjustment granted a special exception for a hobby shop in the accessory structure on July 18, 2005. The proposed 513 sq. ft. hobby shop would be used as an art studio and for storage. The primary materials include wood horizontal siding with wood facia and soffit. The applicant is also proposing to install wood double hung windows and French doors. The 12:12 gabled roof is approximately twenty feet at the peak. It would be covered with asphalt shingles. Based on the analysis and the findings of the Staff Report, Staff is recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
A copy of the Staff Report is filed with these minutes.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if the Commission had any questions for Staff.
Mr. Fitzsimmons indicated that they couldn't see the existing garage structure that is to be demolished and asked whether it was gone.
Ms. Lew indicated it was.
Ms. Mickelsen asked the applicant to come forward. Gil Schaefer, property owner, came forward.
Mr. Schaefer indicated that the upper floor is just storage space.
Mr. Lloyd asked whether the cars are currently parked in the driveway. Mr. Schaefer indicated they are.
Mr. Lloyd asked about the shed at the end of the driveway.
Ms. Mickelsen indicated it is part of the house and asked about the height of the house compared to the new structure.
Ms. Lew said that the architects might have a better idea and suggested the relative height to be about twenty feet.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any more questions for the applicant. There were none. She asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak. Seeing none, the Public Hearing was closed and the Commission moved to Executive Session.
Mr. Simonsen moved that in Case No. 028-05 regarding the subject property at 669 East Third Avenue, based on the findings in the Staff Report and the discussion of the Commission, the proposed accessory structure be approved subject to the following conditions:
• Review of the final details of the design of the proposed project including any concerns or suggestions expressed by the Commission, shall be delegated to Planning Staff for final approval.
• Approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements.
• Any alterations to the approved plans must be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission or Planning Staff.
Mr. Lloyd seconded. Mr. Fitzsimons, Mr. Christensen, Ms. Heid, Mr. Simonsen and Mr. Lloyd all voted “Aye”. None were opposed. The motion passed.
Unfinished Business
None
Other Business
This is Mr. Simonsen's last meeting as a member of the Commission. Mr. Paterson expressed thanks to Mr. Simonsen and thanked him for his years of dedication to the Commission. He asked that anyone with a name of new prospective members to please turn them in. The Commission thanked Mr. Simonsen and wished him well in his new duties as City Council member.
Discussion of the proposed Compatible Residential Infill Development Standards
Ms. Mickelsen indicated that the Commission needed to generate a recommendation to the City Council in regards to the Compatible Infill Ordinance.
Ms. Coffey indicated the Staff would draft a letter of support for the chair's signature.
Mr. Ikefuna asked that someone from the Commission would go to the City Council and speak. Ms. Mickelsen indicated that she was there last evening. Mr. Simonsen spoke to the City Council last week. She felt that it was not necessary to go again.
Mr. Simonsen asked if there would be an opportunity to speak at the City Council meeting on December 13, 2005, because the City Council closed the public hearing and it is unclear if the Council would reopen the hearing.
Mr. Ikefuna said they are still accepting comments.
Mr. Simonsen felt it was very interesting sitting through the hearings. He stated there are very strong feelings on both sides of the issue. His personal feelings were the dimensional limitations which are mostly addressed now do not allow very large structures, even some of the small structures that were approved in the past, which some people believe are compatible would not be automatically allowed and may not be approved in an administrative hearing. But last evening what he felt they were saying is the continued need for design guidelines that begin to address some of the other issues that are covered by the dimensional limitation. He asked if staff had done analysis on the impact of additional workload.
Mr. Paterson indicated that based on the statistics of the past fiscal year, from July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005, the City issued eighty-six permits for single family homes. With the standards that have been proposed and recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council for building height, a base building height of twenty-three feet measured from the crest of the roof for an average of building height of homes along that block face, most new construction would have to go through one of the tiered review processes.
Mr. Simonsen asked about addressing the additions as well.
Mr. Paterson said with the City's reporting to the Federal Government, it is difficult to determine exactly the number of permits issued for building additions. The category reports modifications, repairs, and additions. There were over 1,400 permits issued last year in that category. Staff estimated that about 300 were for additions to single family homes. Under the current standards about 50o/o or more could have to go through one of these review processes. This is based on the standards recommended to City Council. The Council is considering the twenty three foot building height limit and also considering a modification suggested by the Utah Heritage Foundation that would allow a rear addition as long as it met certain standards. That would sufficiently cut down the amount of additional reviews for additions. If these are adopted as they are now there will be sufficient workload in the Planning office. The Planning Commission recommended that after one year, there be a review of the standards to determine how effective the standards have been and whether there are enough resources to ensure that projects are not unduly delayed because there is such a back log of work.
Ms. Coffey asked about accessory structures.
Mr. Paterson indicated that there has been in the last year 155 new accessory structures permitted. With these standards, probably 50 per cent or more of them would have to go through a process. If a proposal for accessory structures demonstrates compatibility with the existing development patterns. Some of the standards can be modified. Some standards are very strict for accessory structures. The proposed building height for the accessory structures is fifteen feet to the ridge instead of seventeen feet to the mid-point. The base standards can be modified through Routine and Uncontested process or through the Board of Adjustment to get additional height on an accessory structure. The other two standards that have received a lot of comments are the maximum rear yard setback of five feet for an accessory structure and the separation standard of ten feet between accessory structure and any house on an adjoining lot. The Planning Commission recommended increasing this standard to twenty feet.
A discussion followed with ideas and comments of design, additional local Historic Districts or more staff resources needed to regulate, review, modify and adopt guidelines. This ordinance needs to be adopted as soon as possible. Since there is only one year to review, Staff time and any new Historic Districts would impact the staff. They wondered if the impact could be offset with local districts. The City Council would probably adopt some portion of this proposal but most likely develop a list of things for staff to work on that will be taken back to City Council. Discussion with the Council is that they have trust in the Historic Landmark Commission process and the Commission.
The Commission will appoint a subcommittee to work with Staff to develop a policy regarding the use of solar energy technology. Staff must first do additional research and will report back to the commission at a later date.
Mr. Simonsen moved to adjourn at 7:15p.m.