SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
Minutes of the Meeting Room 326, 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 February 2, 2012.
Historic Landmark Commission Meetings are televised on SLCTV 17. Archived video of this meeting can be found at the following link under, "Historic Landmark Commission and RDA "
A regular meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission was called to order on Thursday, February 2, 2012, in Room 326 of the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah,5:32:35 PM. Commissioners present for the meeting included, Chairperson Anne Oliver, Vice Chair Polly Hart, Dave Richards, Sheleigh Harding, Earle Bevins III, Aria Funk and Bill Davis. Commissioner Stephen James was excused.
Planning Staff present for the meeting included Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager, Janice Lew, Senior Planner, Ray Milliner, Principal Planner, and Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary. City Attorney Paul Nielson was also present.
FIELD TRIP 5:32:56 PM
Booth-Parsons House- 1884South 900 East
Belvedere Apartments 29 South State Street
The Commission visited both National Registered Nomination sites and asked questions about the nomination process and why both projects were going through the process for nomination at that time.
DINNER 5:33:06 PM
Dinner was served to the Commission and staff at 5:00p.m. The Commission had no substantive business to discuss.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR 5:33:10 PM
Chairperson Oliver stated at the January meeting a subcommittee was formed to discuss the proposed Filmore Street house addition. She stated the Applicants had asked for as many of the Commission members as possible, instead of having an Architectural Subcommittee, to set a time and date to visit the property and discuss the options with the Applicant and then have a work session rather than a subcommittee.
Mr. Joel Paterson, Planning Manager, stated Staff was working with the Applicant and Commission on a date and time to visit the property.
Vice Chairperson Hart stated she did not have anything to report at this time.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:34:16 PM
Mr. Paterson stated the petition considered at the January meeting, dealing with amendments to the Historic Designation Process, was heard by the Planning Commission on January 11, at which time a positive recommendation was forwarded to the City Council. He stated the Planning Commission took a different track on some of the process issues therefore; the City Council would receive a packet with two separate draft ordinances addressing the recommendations of each Commission. He stated Staff would keep the Commissioners informed as the Historic Designation Process document moved forward in the City Council. Mr. Paterson reviewed the Legislative activities of 2010, the one year moratorium on the designation of new local historic districts under certain conditions which mostly applied to Salt Lake City. He stated there was another bill, this year, which would continue the moratorium for one year. Mr. Paterson explained the moratorium also included demolition. He stated Staff would keep the Commission informed of those activities.
Chairperson Oliver asked if the current bill asked for a moratorium. Mr. Paterson stated it did.
Commissioner Hart asked what the Planning Commission's take was on the buy in.
Mr. Paterson stated the Planning Commission recommended if an individual property owner wanted to initiate a petition for a new local historic district, thirty-three percent of the property owners within the proposed district would be required sign to the petition. He said the Landmark Commission recommended a range somewhere between ten and twenty-five percent. Mr. Paterson explained the Planning Commission agreed with the Historic Landmark Commission regarding sending on the public support vote information to the City Council. He stated the Planning Commission didn't include a threshold in the public support vote as recommended by the Historic Landmark Commission as they considered the vote itself to be the important information. He said the Planning Commission also asked that detailed information about the vote be forwarded to the City Council and the Council would take that information, regardless of what the results of that vote was, and be able to approve with just a simple majority vote from
the Council.
Ms. Cheri Coffey, Assistant Director, stated she did not have anything to report at that time.
APPROVAL OF January 5, 2012 MINUTES 5:37:48 PM
MOTION 5:37:53 PM
Commissioner Hart moved to approve the minutes of January 5, 2012 with corrections. Commissioner Harding seconded the motion. Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Harding and Davis voted Aye. Commissioner Funk abstained as she was not present at the meeting. The motion passed with a 5-0 vote Chairperson Oliver did not vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS 5:39:51 PM No Public comment at this time.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 5:40:24 PM
Booth-Parsons House National Register Nomination - A request soliciting comments from the Historic Landmark Commission regarding listing the Booth-Parsons house, located at approximately1884 South 900 East on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Janice Lew, Senior Planner stated the Historic Landmark Commission was being asked to make a recommendation to the Board of State History regarding this nomination to the National Register. She stated once those were reviewed by the Board of State History they were passed on for consideration by the National Park Service. She turned the time over to Ms. Korral Broschinsky for the presentation.
Ms. Korral Broschinsky, Consultant, presented a slide show to the Commission depicting the subject property. She stated the Booth-Parsons House was being nominated for the National Register of Historic Places for architectural significance. She reviewed the location, history and architectural elements of the house. She stated it had elements of a California Bungalow, was a Arts and Crafts Bungalow and it had elements of the Prairie School Style particularly on the windows arid in the interior. Ms. Broschinsky stated the house was quite large for the neighborhood and was remarkably well preserved.
Chairperson Oliver asked the property owners if they had anything they would like to add.
They did not wish to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:52:07 PM
Chairperson Oliver opened the Public Hearing seeing there was no one in the audience that wished to speak on the issue Chairperson Oliver closed the Public Hearing.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 5:52:25 PM
Chairperson Oliver asked for discussion or a motion. She commended the owners and Ms. Broschinsky on a job well done.
MOTION 5:53:15 PM
Commissioner Funk moved in the case of the Booth - Parsons House for the Historic Landmark Commission to send a positive recommendation to the Board of State History that this home be included on the National Register. Commissioner Hart seconded the motion. Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Harding, Funk and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 6-0 vote Chairperson Oliver did not vote.
5:54:13 PM
Belvedere Apartment National Register Nomination - A request soliciting comments from the Historic Landmark Commission regarding listing the Belvedere Apartments, located at approximately 29 South State Street, on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Lew turned the time over to Mr. Charles Shepherd for a presentation.
Mr. Charles Shepherd stated the Belvedere Apartments on State Street were being nominated individually in a slightly different context. He explained the Historic Resources of Salt Lake City Urban Expansion into the Early Twentieth Century 1890's to 1930 's which identified a number of historic contexts. Mr. Shepherd reviewed the program and the criteria for an apartment building to be included on the National Register. He stated the Belvedere Apartments met all the requirements and criteria required to be listed on the National Register. Mr. Shepherd reviewed the history and use of the building. He recommended a favorable recommendation be sent to the Board of State History regarding adding the Belvedere Apartments to the National Register of Historic Places.
Commissioner Richards stated he was surprised the building had not been nominated before now as it was such a landmark building.
Mr. Shepherd stated he was not able to explain why that happened and explained how he became involved with the building through window replacement at which time they encouraged the nomination.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:13:29 PM
Chairperson Oliver opened the Public Hearing seeing there was no one in the audience that wished to speak on the issue Chairperson Oliver closed the Public Hearing.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 6:13:38 PM
Chairperson Oliver asked for discussion or a motion. She commended the owners and Mr. Shepherd on a job well done.
MOTION 6:14:00 PM
Commissioner Hart moved, in the case of the Belvedere Apartments at 29 South State Street that the Historic Landmark Commission send a positive recommendation to the Board of State History for the building to be listed on the National Register. Commissioner Richards seconded the motion. Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Harding, Funk and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 6-0 vote Chairperson Oliver did not vote.
6:14:56 PM
PLNHLC2011-00466 Ronald McDonald House, 925 & 935 East South Temple Certificate of Appropriateness for New Construction and Additional Height - A request by Ronald McDonald Charities represented by Casey McDonough, to remodel an existing building and build a new four story building at approximately 925 East 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.
Mr. Ray Milliner, Principal Planner, reviewed the process the application had gone through. He reviewed the design discussion and the current proposal as outlined in the Staff Report. Mr. Milliner reviewed the work the Applicant had been doing in regards to discussions on the design with the local Community Councils addressing concerns. He reviewed the letters and emails from the public. Mr. Milliner stated the interface between the new and old structures had not been addressed but would be addressed in a different application. He stated the Applicant would like to include the connection between the two buildings in the current application. He reviewed what the connection was proposed to be and explained it had not changed from the original proposal submitted and reviewed by the Commission October 2011. Mr. Milliner stated it was Staff’s recommendation to approve the proposed design with the proposed changes.
Ms. Karrie Romono, Director of Ronald McDonald House, stated they had tried to implement the concerns and feedback from the Commissioners, invested significant time and resources to make significant changes to the design in hopes of achieving the Commission's approval. She reviewed the meetings with the East Central and Greater Avenues Community Councils to addressed concerns regarding the height exception and design. Ms. Romono stated the Councils supported the additional building height. She told of the neighborhood meeting held to address
concerns of the surrounding neighbors. She stated the neighbors supported the project as submitted to the Commission. Ms. Romono stated the new design was lovely, stately and highly compatible with South Temple, the neighborhood and the important piece of land. She stated they hoped the Commissioners would agree with them on the proposal.
Mr. Allen Roberts, CRSA Architect, reviewed the changes to the proposal as outlined in the Staff Report. He reviewed the issues addressed at the prior meeting such as:
1. The building having a landmark quality
2. An urban quality,
3. Emphasis on the comer,
4. Subordinated east facade to the comer element.
5. Articulated entry feature,
6. Average height not to exceed fifty feet
7. Primarily masonry exterior
8. Appropriate amount of architectural detailing.
Mr. Roberts stated those were the items the Commission and the guidelines suggested would be good qualities for the building to have. He stated the characteristics of a landmark building needed to be defined. Mr. Roberts presented a picture board depicting ten buildings considered to be landmarks. He reviewed the characteristics of the buildings and what similarities and differences the proposed building had. He stated the connecting structure between the two buildings was presented in the first presentation and was architecturally neutral. Mr. Roberts asked the Commissioners to approve the proposed design and offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Richards asked if the design for the link would be submitted separately.
Mr. Roberts stated the design was submitted with the original proposal and explained no comments were given regarding the connector's design therefore, it was planned to leave it as proposed.
Commissioner Richards stated he was aware that it was included in the earlier proposals but was not included in the most recent proposal.
Mr. Roberts explained it was not included in the current proposal because they were not planning to change it. He stated they would be willing to bring it back to the Commission as part of another petition. Mr. Roberts stated it was basically three foot windows that went from one building to the other.
Commissioner Richards stated if Mr. Roberts wanted the link approved then language needed to be included in the current proposal.
Mr. Roberts stated he would like to have it approved if the Commission saw fit to do so.
Chairperson Oliver asked if the connector was one story or higher.
Mr. Roberts explained it was one story. He explained it connected the second floor of the new building to the main level of the existing building and it was designed to be a carpeted hallway between the two buildings approximately eight feet wide.
Chairperson Oliver asked how the grade change beneath the connection would be addressed. Mr. Roberts explained there was a drop off of about six feet of dirt and trees. Chairperson Oliver asked if a retaining wall would be installed.
Mr. Roberts stated there was nothing in place at the moment but neutral landscaping would be added.
Ms. Coffey stated Mr. Milliner was retrieving the drawings for the Commission to view. Chairperson Oliver asked with the two very different buildings and the invisible connector how would the properties be united with the landscaping.
Mr. Roberts stated the buildings would be united visually such as the Daft Building and the Kearns Building were with the recessed glass walkway. He stated they would make it an inconspicuous connection with the connector and landscaping. Mr. Roberts reviewed the landscaping currently in place and what would be done to update the landscaping.
Commissioner Richards asked how the connector should be referenced in a motion as it was not included in the presented Staff Report.
Mr. Roberts stated whether or not the connector was approved was not crucial. He said it would be nice for it to be approved but could be brought back at a later date.
Commissioner Hart asked for clarification on the depth of the building as it was not originally planned to be as deep and were there still plans to add on to the north.
Mr. Roberts stated there was still a plan to add on in the future and the building's depth was not changed from the original proposal.
Commissioner Hart asked if the proposal was the original part not including a later addition.
Mr. Roberts stated an addition would be constructed in the future, if the Ronald McDonald was unable to keep up with the demand to provide rooms. He explained the future addition would be a small addition to the north with the same design and layout as the current proposal.
Chairperson Oliver stated the Commission was not approving the future addition as part of the current proposal.
Mr. Roberts stated he understood that and would address the future addition with a new application if the need arose.
Commissioner Bevins asked if there were any other entrances besides the main entrance.
Mr. Roberts reviewed the rear elevation and explained the architectural features that would make the entrances similar to the main entrance on the north side.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the play areas on the South Temple side of the structure and the use of the entrances. They discussed the architectural elements that would be used on the building to tie it into the area.
Chairperson Oliver thanked Mr. Roberts for a job well done. She asked the Commissioners if there were further questions regarding the connector.
Commissioner Richards stated it was hard to make a recommendation because what would it be based on, the current submittal or a past submittal.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:47:20 PM
Chairperson Oliver opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, Resident, stated she sent a letter to the Commission that she would like to elaborate on. She said first of all the research done by the Architect was remarkable and she would hope that with proper acknowledgement, it could be used in the future when discussing design guidelines for multip1e unit buildings in Salt Lake City. Ms. Cromer stated the guidelines would be different but the information from Mr. Roberts was a step in the right direction. She commended the Architect on a job well done and indicated there would be expansions to the property in the future as there had been in the past. Ms. Cromer asked the Commission to remember the subject area was the connecting point of two very different Historic Districts with that, consideration needed to be given to the smaller scale district to protect it. She stated that
could possibly be done with a development agreement.
Commissioner Richards asked if Ms. Cromer thought the suggested standards should be part of the new Commercial Design Guidelines or as an amendment to the Residential Guidelines.
Ms. Cromer stated she thought there needed to be a separate set of guidelines dealing with the larger scale structures that were appropriate for East Downtown. She stated the Commercial Design Guidelines did not deal with the larger scale structures only the smaller scale commercial structures. She explained the Commercial Guidelines did not address mix use and she felt it was a huge gap that was falling on each applicant to address at their own cost. Ms. Cromer explained what was happening with another case that was not moving along as quickly as the Ronald McDonald House. She said there was a need for design guidelines for larger structures, South Temple and the Central City Historic Districts were critical and the Commission owed it to the individuals with these projects to put the guidelines in place as quickly as possible.
Ms. Coffey stated once the Residential Design Guidelines were approved, Multi Family Guidelines would be addressed.
Ms. Ester Hunter, Central Community Council, reviewed Ronald McDonald's presentation to the Central Community Council in the fall, at which time the Council approved the design. She stated the Council's concern was never about the design but about the process. Mr. Hunter stated the Council was concerned that it was being reported that they approved the current design when they had not seen the changes to the proposal. She explained her frustration with made up words being used to describe the building and not being defined. Ms. Hunter stated the Commission needed to use words that were clear to give the Applicants proper direction and not leave it up to the Applicant to decipher what was being said. Ms. Hunter said from a community stand point when changes in height or a master plan change were proposed, the Community Council worried about the impact on immediate neighbors and on the neighborhoods. She said the Community Council looked at not only the shadow lines of the existing building but the shadow line and impact of the future expansion. Ms. Hunter said the Council personally knocked on doors to make sure people in the surrounding area were involved in the process and aware of what was taking place. She stated the Central Community Council was in favor of the current design and hoped the Commission would approve the proposal.
Chairperson Oliver closed the Public Hearing.
EXECUTIVE SESSION 6:55:17 PM
Commissioner Bevins stated he felt the plans had improved, the orientation was toward South Temple as part of the guidelines and also the Applicant had accentuated the corner location. He stated they did a great job and it was much better than what was originally presented.
Commissioner Hart said she liked the presented design and it would stand in its own right. She thanked the Applicant for all their hard work.
Chairperson Oliver suggested talking about the connector and whether or not it was something that would be included in a motion now or should be included in future plans.
Commissioner Harding stated the link should be added to future application as the Commission needed more information to approve the feature.
Commissioner Richards asked if the Applicant could answer a question he had. Chairperson Oliver asked the applicant to come forward.
Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Roberts about the recessed windows on the front wall.
Mr. Roberts stated they were in favor of the recessed windows and explained it was a character of buildings on South Temple.
Chairperson Oliver explained where the term "landmarky" came from. She stated the site was significant, a large lot on a nationally recognized street and not only was it an exceptionally rare chance for new architecture on a very important street, it was at the terminal axis of another major street in Salt Lake City. She said perhaps this was why there was excessive difficulty in working out a design that not only met the needs of the Applicant but also met the needs of South Temple as a Historic District. Chairperson Oliver stated the granting of the height exception was to provide room in which to give the Applicant greater flexibility in creating a design that met the specific criteria of South Temple that was quite unique.
MOTION 7:01:22 PM
Commissioner Hart moved in the case of PLNHLC2011-00503 based on the discussion, she moved for the Historic Landmark Commission to follow Staff's recommendation and approve the petition with the seven conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Hart asked if language regarding the connector needed to be added to the motion. Ms. Coffey stated language indicating the motion did not include the connector should be added
as well as a request that the Applicant come back at a later date with that information.
Commissioner Hart amended the motion to the following:
Commissioner Hart moved in the case of PLNHLC2011-00503 that based on findings in the Staff Report, the Historic Landmark Commission approve the petition with the seven conditions listed in the Staff Report including the fifteen foot height exception and that the Applicant should return at a later date for the review and approval of the connector between the proposed and existing buildings. Commissioner Funk seconded the motion.
Commissioner Davis stated the case number was not the same on the agenda and the Staff Report.
Commissioner Hart clarified the case number and stated the case number should be PLNHLC2011-00466 and the motion should reflect the corrected· case number. Commissioner Funk seconded the amendment.
Commissioners Hart, Richards, Bevins, Harding, Funk and Davis voted Aye. The motion passed with a 6-0 vote Chairperson Oliver did not vote