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 Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Young, Elizabeth Giraud, Janice Lew, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, Soren Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young. Scott Christensen and Alex Protasevich were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Cheri Coffey and Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisors, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Parvaz announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He said that instructions for the appeal's process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Mr. Parvaz asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, according to the open meeting law. 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 December 19, 2001 meeting. Ms. Heid seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Young moved to approve the minutes from the January 2, 2002 meeting. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young voted "Aye". Ms. Heid abstained. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Protasevich, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Mr. Parvaz stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.
PREVIOUS BUSINESS
Case No. 019-01, at 340 South 600 East, by Overland Development Corporation, represented by Ken Holman, requesting a review of the findings of fact of the Economic Review Panel regarding an economic hardship relative to a request for the demolition of the Juel Apartments in order to construct a 200-unit apartment building complex.
Ms. Giraud stated that the minutes and the report of the Economic Review Panel regarding the economic hardship request by Mr. Holman were not distributed to the applicant, members of the Economic Review Panel or the Historic Landmark Commission early enough to review. She consulted with Mr. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, and he suggested that it would be in everyone's best interest to continue this case, gMng the members more of an opportunity to read the minutes and the report. Ms. Giraud said that this was not the fault of the Economic Review Panel or the applicant. She inquired about convening another Historic Landmark Commission meeting during the next two weeks.
(Mr. Simonsen arrived at 4:10P.M.)
Ms. Giraud indicated that Mr. Holman would still like to use this time to update the Commission regarding his new project.
• Mr. Holman stated that first phase of his new construction project is scheduled to be reviewed at the February 27, 2002 meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission. He said unless the Commissioners thought that he would be monopolizing the entire meeting, he would be willing to postpone his review of the request for economic hardship until that meeting. Mr. Holman added that he would be willing to meet then or within the next two weeks. A short discussion followed.
Because this case appeared on the agenda, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public. He asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved that Case 019-01 be continued to the February 27, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. At which time the Commission will hold a public hearing and a presentation of the Economic Review Panel regarding the economic hardship request by Ken Holman to demolish the Juel Apartments at 340 South 600 East. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Ms. Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The
motion passed.
• Mr. Parvaz asked Mr. Holman to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Holman circulated draft drawings of his proposed project. He stated that he would like to brief the Commission regarding Phase One of his proposed project. Mr. Holman said that he originally was using an architectural firm that was located in Seattle, and found out that communicating become very difficult on the fine points of the project. He said that he hired the local architectural firm, MHTN, to be engaged with the design of the project and have been very pleased with the efforts of those involved.
Mr. Holman pointed out the potential layout of the project. He said that he was making a "blatant assumption that the Juel Apartments would not be standing". Mr. Holman said that the first phase of the project on 500 East Street would include the Vernier Court properties. He stated that a six-story mid-rise apartment project with two stories of underground parking would be the best utilization of the site, which would be fronted with retail. Mr. Holman continued to describe the complex that he hoped to create.
Ms. Giraud stated that students from Mr. Young's architectural class at the University of Utah is assisting Mr. Holman in completing a recordation of the existing buildings before the demolition takes place approximately the first of March 2002.
Mr. Young offered some suggestions for the presentation drawings for the February 27, 2002 meeting, such as showing the streetscape on the west elevation of the complex.
Mr. Littig inquired about the salvage on the historic buildings. Mr. Holman said that a few people have called who said they were interested. Mr. Littig said that people are always looking for replacements when restoring historic properties. Mr. Holman said that if there is a way to make the buildings safe, he would not have any objections to allowing people to salvage what they want.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 003-02, at Pioneer Park, by the Salt Lake City Planning Division, requesting to permit the installation of a sculpture by a Greek artist, Pavlos Kougioumtzis, on the northeast corner. The park is located on Block 48, between 300 and 400 South, and 300 and 400 West streets. Pioneer Park is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Ms. Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She displayed a small replica of the sculpture. Ms. Lew stated that Salt Lake City is requesting approval to allow the public display of a work of art by the Greek sculptor, at the northeast corner of Pioneer Park. Ms. Lew said that Pioneer Park is listed on both the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Lew pointed out that the park is currently zoned open space (OS). She said that the location for the work of art may be temporary and is still being evaluated. Ms. Lew stated that the sculpture's ties to Greece suggest that a location along the diagonal axes near the Greek Orthodox Church where the train was removed may be the most appropriate location.
Ms. Lew gave the following background information: The first Mormon emigrants established a fort at Block 48 after their arrival in 1847. The fort served as home to the pioneers until they could build permanent structure on their city lots. After 1890, the fort site was used as a playground and formally designated as a city park on July 24, 1898. Although nothing physically is left of its previous use, the site remains an important landmark of Mormon settlement in the West. Over the years City officials have entertained various plans to regain the use of the park as a safe and vibrant public space. Improvement projects proposed for the park by the Redevelopment Agency were approved in April of 1995 by the Historic Landmark Commission and implemented, such as volleyball courts, drinking fountains, widening the path from 300 South to the center of the park, removing the train engine, and constructing restroom facilities. More recent petitions for alterations and construction in the park include expansion of the popular farmer's market, installation of flagpoles in the center park, and a commemorative bell tower.
Ms. Lew continued by saying that the work of art is a gift from Greece to Salt Lake City in celebration of the coming Winter Olympic Games. She said that during the games, Pioneer Park would be a primary transportation center and experience a high volume of visitor traffic. Ms. Lew reported that the twelve-foot bronze sculpture of Prometheus, one of the Titans, was known as the God of Fire, symbolizing the human struggle for freedom, dignity, and creation. She stated that the sculpture would eventually be placed on a four-foot high concrete base faced with stone, marble, or granite.
Ms. Lew pointed out a letter from Nancy Boskoff, Director of the City's Arts Council, where it states that the Arts Council's Design Board is required to review proposed gifts of art to the City and make a recommendation to the Mayor, who has the authority for the final decision for accepting works of art. A copy of the letter was filed with the minutes.
• Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020(G) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness for Alteration of a Landmark Site or Contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, the Historic Landmark Commission, or the planning director, for administrative decisions, shall find that the project substantially complies with all of the following general standards that pertain to the application and that the decision is in the best interest of the City. Ms. Lew stated that only the following standards pertained to the current proposal:
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;
Staffs findings of fact: The park's historical significance is tied to two roles: first as a fort and then, as a city park. However, nothing remains of the fort nor recreational structures associated with the park, and thus as a historic site, its physical integrity is minimal. The changes that are proposed, therefore, will not negatively affect the historic character of this site.
8. Contemporary design for alterations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant cultural, historical, architectural or archaeological material, and such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment;
Staff's findings of fact: The proposed alteration is clearly contemporary in design, compatible with the character of the property and the neighborhood, and will not destroy significant cultural or historical material.
Ms. Lew offered the following staff's recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the proposal for installation of a sculpture in Pioneer park, based upon staff's findings, that the project substantially complies with the standards that pertain to the application and delegate any outstanding issues, such as installation details and location, to staff for final approval."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff.
Mr. Littig clarified that Pioneer Park would be a temporary location. Ms. Lew said that it would be unless the Commission approved it for a permanent location. He inquired if the stature had arrived. Ms. Lew said that it should be arrMng in about a week.
Ms. Giraud said that the artist is traveling with the sculpture and the City wanted to insure that the location was through the process before the arrival of the work or art.
Mr. Simonsen inquired if this was the only site that had been recommended. Ms. Giraud said that it was not, but suggested that Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director, talk about the other site issues.
• Mr. Parvaz invited Mr. Wilde to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Wilde stated that when the City received the initial offer for the sculpture, the thought was to place it in Pioneer Park. He said that a possible location has shifted to the park blocks on 500 West Street (Legacy Park) as being a more preferred location. Mr. Wilde said that the sculpture needed to be placed and have an unveiling by February 10, 2002. He added that the City has to act very swiftly. Mr. Wilde said that he would appreciate the consideration of the Commission members, if not permanently, but on a temporary basis at a location in Pioneer Park, if there is a problem with the park block. When asked, Mr. Wilde said that the park blocks on 500 West have been landscaped going north from 200 South Street. He added that there were other works of art that have been placed on those park blocks.
Mr. Wilde said that this request has to be coordinated with Rick Graham, Director of Public Services, which includes the Parks Department. He said that the City is acknowledging that there is an ongoing planning process for Pioneer Park and even if the Commission agreed to a permanent location, it might be moved if the long term planning dictated relocation.
Mr. Wilde said that the authorities of the Greek Orthodox Church were aware of the gift and would like it on their grounds but do not have a good location. He added that they supported the Pioneer Park site.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Simonsen led the discussion by asking about the time frame for the temporary location, if the Commission approved Pioneer Park site for the sculpture. Mr. Wilde said that it would be until the summer season where there would be more opportunity and good weather to relocate the object. Mr. Wilde said he would welcome any specific site location suggestions in the park.
• Mr. Littig said that either the location between 200 and 300 South Streets, or between 300 and 400 South on 500 West would be a desirable location for the sculpture. Mr. Littig inquired if the City was funding the placement of the sculpture and would the site be restored if the Commission were to approve Pioneer Park. Mr. Wilde said that the City has requested donations but the City would fund the construction of the base unless donations come in.
• Mr. Parvaz said that he believed that a more comprehensive study would be needed before the sculpture was considered for Pioneer Park on a permanent basis. He said that the conclusion would be very important. Mr. Parvaz said that for a temporary location, it might be all right. He said he looked forward to public input.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for Mr. Wilde. Since the Commission had no questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz excused Mr. Wilde and opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
• The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Ms. Lew referred to a letter staff received from Hermoine Jex, Secretary of the Pioneer Park/Fort Restoration Committee, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. The letter states that the modern rendering of Prometheus, a Greek sculpture, is not suitable or appropriate for this historical Utah site, and such a statue is against all past and existing historic commitments and plans for this ten acre space. Ms. Jex recommended several other sites that would be appropriate. She requested that the Historic Landmark Commission denies this
request.
• Ms. Elma Odegard, who is an interested party, asked Ms. Lew to read a letter from Mary A. Johnson, President of the International Society Daughters of Utah Pioneers, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. Ms. Johnson wrote that Pioneer Park is a dedicated historic site and a figure from Greek Mythology would not quite fit into the Western pioneer theme. The letter stated, "It is remarkable that a sculpture of such historical value and by such a renowned sculptor would be offered to our city for the Olympics, but surely there is a much better location for it some place other than Pioneer Park. We, as a legacy and historical organization, are dedicated to the preservation and promotion of pioneer history in our city and state and will fight hard to protect those things that will help the citizens living here now remember and learn of the heritage that has been handed down to us. We are against having things placed in Pioneer Park that would detract from its historical value and purpose." Ms. Odegard concluded by saying that another location should be selected.
• Ms. Cindy Cromer, an interested party, commented on other pieces of sculpture in park development plans. She talked about the boxcar that was in Memory Grove Park and the once proposed cancer memorial park where City Creek Park exists. Ms. Cromer said that she believed the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers have a valid concern. She stated that there is a great deal of enthusiasm when it comes to receMng a gift, but the money and the resources for relocation do not always seem to materialize. Ms. Cromer suggest that the Commission proceed with caution and have a plan in place.
Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Littig agreed that the Commissioner needed to be careful about the decision of the sculpture being located in Pioneer Park, especially as temporary installation. He added that the City would be remiss not to receive the gift.
Mr. Simonsen suggested a more majestic location than Pioneer Park.
Mr. Ashdown said that he was surprised that a location would not have been chosen near an Olympic event, like the stadium or the ice center.
• Mr. Young said that the 500 West location might be misinterpreted and wave people into the Gateway. He said that it needed to be placed on a higher plane such as on Eleventh Avenue where it would have a mountain backdrop.
Ms. Giraud said that she thought the scale would be the same as many of the Alan Houser sculptures on Washington Square. She said that the sculpture is not going to overwhelm anything; it would be placed on a ten-acre site.
Ms. Mickelsen suggested permanently locating the sculpture on the library block.
Mr. Parvaz expressed his concerns that the temporary location in Pioneer Park might turn out to be permanent.
A discussion took place regarding the issues at hand. The Historic Landmark Commission would not review the permanent location unless a historic site or a site within a historic district was selected. Other sites such as Abravanel Hall, Gallivan Plaza, airport, the Capitol Building, or the area on 200 South between 500 and 600 West, which was known historically as "Greek Town".
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved for Case No. 003-02 to deny the request to place the Greek sculpture Prometheus on a temporary basis in Pioneer Park. Although staff's finding of fact did not state any reasons for the sculpture's location, placing it in Pioneer Park, even on a temporary basis, would not be consistent with the current thinking or master planning for the use of the park and the historical significance of the site. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Ms. Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig was opposed. Mr. Christensen and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 004-02, at 452 East 500 South, by the owners, requesting comments regarding the nomination of the "Joseph and Marie McRae" house to the National Register of Historic Places.
Mr. Knight presented his memorandum. A copy of the memorandum and accompanying documents were filed with the minutes. He stated that the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) requested input from the Historic Landmark Commission for the National Register of Historic Places nominations within Salt Lake City's boundaries. Mr. Knight said that the input is provided to the Board of State History, which votes on the nominations. He added that the nomination is then sent to the National Park Service, the federal agency responsible for the National Register. Mr. Knight pointed out that the letter from Mr. Wilson Martin explained the process more in detail, a copy of which was also filed with the minutes. He indicated that Korral Broschinsky prepared the nomination. Mr. Knight pointed out that Ms. Broschinsky sent her apology for not being at the meeting.
Mr. Knight said that the Joseph and Marie N. McRae house was constructed between 1911 and 1913 and is currently owned by Brent Sloan. He said that the house is a two story, foursquare-type structure with bungalow/craftsman details.
The following is a brief narrative history and description of the house: Joseph McRae was a sheep rancher and woolgrower who saved his money, retired, and built this large foursquare home around the corner from his growing family's modest Victorian cottage. The McRae family owned the house until October 2001. Marie McRae taught piano in her home and her piano still sits in the living room.
The house is constructed of red pressed brick, sits on a sandstone foundation, and has aluminum shingles on its pyramidal roof. The house has over 3,500 square feet of space divided between the two main floors. The stone is in good condition except under the porch where it has been exposed to water and excessive vegetation. With the exception of some aluminum covering the fascia boards, all original exterior wood is extant. The porch eaves, eave soffits and brackets, and square Tuscan columns have been damaged by water, but all other wood is in good condition. Besides the porch columns, the main decorative elements are a plain cornice (under the main and porch rooflines, and above the bay window), and the wide, overhanging eaves supported on Arts and Crafts-style brackets. The two-story screen porch was an original feature with access from a hallway on the second floor. The current owner will reinstall the balustrade, with plans to recreate pieces too eroded to use. There is a small dormer above the balcony area.
The McRae house is located just west of the Central City Historic District, a neighborhood that includes a variety of well-preserved historic housing stock. Unfortunately, due to the pressures of commercial development along 400, 500, and 600 South streets, (all transportation corridors between Interstate 15, downtown and the University of Utah), the original residential character of the neighborhood has been severely undermined. The McRae house and its immediate neighbor to the west are the only residences left on the 400 block of 500 South. The McRae house has nearly pristine historic integrity and is a contributing historic resource in the neighborhood.
Mr. Parvaz recommended making an effort to have the consultant present. Mr. Knight said that a slide presentation would also have been more appropriate.
Ms. Rowland inquired if the Commission would review the restoration or possible signage once the building is included on the National Register. Mr. Knight said that it would not be unless the owner would like to include it on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Mr. Parvaz closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session:
Ms. Giraud said that the owner had been in touch with staff and she told him it was not necessary for him to appear at this meeting unless he desired to do so. She said that staff has been concerned about this house because it has been a "sitting duck" for redevelopment. She added that the City changed the Residential Business (RB) zoning to allow a property with only 5,000 square feet of land to make a commercial conversion, rather than the prior 20,000 square feet. Mr. Parvaz inquired if that was done for the benefit of this property. Ms. Giraud answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Knight acknowledged that it is always a pleasant surprise when someone does not want to demolish an historic building. Ms. Giraud added that the fact the house was owned by the same family for so many years was miraculous in itself.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the original fabric. Ms. Giraud said that she would work with Mr. Roger Evans, Director of the Department of Building Services, to make allowances for original fabric to remain rather than strict interpretation of the building code.
Mr. Knight reminded the Commission that as part of the tax credit application, the work would be reviewed by the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Mr. Young also said that SHPO's very stringent evaluation program would protect the property for five years and the owner would have to maintain the property, during that time, in a manner that was suitable by the standards of the Secretary of Interior.
Motion:
Mr. Young moved for Case No. 004-02 that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a positive recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office for the application to nominate the Joseph and Marie McRae house to be included on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Ms. Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of the Planning Commission's recommended revisions to the height limits in the TC-Transit Corridor Zoning District along 400 South between 700 and 900 East streets. This issue was raised by a citizen at the January 2, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, and the Commission requested further information from the Planning Staff.
Mr. Knight stated that when the Commission was briefed regarding the TC-Transit Corridor Zoning District, the discussion focused on the portion of 400 South that lies within the Central City Historic District. He said that at the January 2, 2002 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, an interested citizen, Cindy Cromer, introduced the issue of the historic structures being overshadowed by high rise buildings between 700 and 900 East along 400 South streets if the new zoning was approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Knight said that area is on the boundaries of two proposed National Historic Districts and would not ordinarily be subjected to a Historic Landmark Commission review.
Mr. Knight asked Ms. Coffey of the Planning Staff to attend this meeting to address any issues that the Commissioners may have.
Ms. Coffey stated that Ms. Cromer was concerned about the 50-foot height allowance in the proposed TC zoning district because a building that high would overshadow the many historic structures north of 400 South Street. She said a property that is shadowed by a high-rise building would not be prone to demolition any more than a property that is not shadowed. Ms. Coffey said that the Planning Staff believes that the additional height allowance along 400 South may benefit the preservation of other historic resources in the area because it might take the development pressure off of those historic structures. She circulated some photographs of the historic structures.
Ms. Coffey continued by saying that the issue was raised at the Planning Commission meeting and the Commission did not support a rear yard setback requirement in the TC zone, however, a required ten-foot landscape buffer when it is adjacent to a residential zoning district, was written into the ordinance, which would encompass most of the area of concern. She said that addition, as well as the idea that the buildings would be built closer to the street with parking in the back, would supply some relief for shadowing. She cited some examples of large trees in the vicinity that cast shadows on neighboring historic properties that could remain because they were inclusive of the ten-foot landscaping buffer.
Ms. Coffey noted that most historic apartment buildings in the area are four stories (less than 45 feet in height) with the first story partially underground. She said that the 50- foot height allowance was recommended because the first floor would be used commercially so it would need to be at grade. She said that concrete between the first and second floors would be required. Mr. Simonsen said that extra height would also allow for a parapet.
• Ms. Coffey also referred to the neighborhood parking issue by saying that most developers would increase the parking requirements for any new development. Therefore, she said there would be a separation between the new building and the rear property line.
Ms. Coffey concluded that many of the historic apartment buildings throughout the neighborhood are next to smaller single-family dwellings and is a typical pattern in the area.
Ms. Coffey said that from the Planning Staff's point of view, this is not a preservation issue. However, when the proposal is transmitted to the City Council, this concern will be addressed and the City Council would have to balance the issue of protecting the historic structures to the north of 400 South from shadowing.
Mr. Littig stated that he believed that livability was a preservation issue. He said that if a residential structure is so overshadowed where it is not livable, it would fall into bad repair and deteriorate, then the building would be demolished. Mr. Littig said that historic structures needed to be protected from encroachment, whether it would be from setbacks or heights of buildings.
Mr. Parvaz clarified that the height allowance in the TC zone went from 45 feet to 50 feet. Ms. Coffey said that the height allowance in the existing TC zone is 30 feet. She noted that in the Planning Staff recommended raising the height limit to 45 feet, but the Planning Commission raised the height limit to 50 feet.
Mr. Simonsen said that he did not believe that anything higher than a four-storied building could be constructed with the height allowance of 50 feet. Ms. Coffey said that the Planning Commissioner's thoughts were the same.
Mr. Parvaz suggested that the issue would be compromised by allowing the 45-foot height limit and requiring the new building to be stepped back. He referred to the briefing the Commission had regarding the Sugar House Master Plan, where that requirement was recommended on 2100 South Street for the very same reason.
Mr. Young said that some states have adopted solar access laws. He said that the key issue would be that the building could be built five feet higher and not disturb that access if a backyard setback is required. Mr. Young added that the buildings also could be staggered.
Ms. Coffey again stated that any recommendations made by this Commission would be transmitted to the City Council.
Even though this was a discussion and not a public hearing, because of the interest surrounding this issue, Mr. Parvaz opened the meeting for public comment and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Ms. Cindy Cromer, a concerned citizen, stated that she wanted to explain, from a neighbor's perspective, the piece of the puzzle that was missing. She stated the following: "Since 1984, we have anticipated getting a compatibility review process for this part of our neighborhood, (the north end of East Central), where we have a high concentration of old houses and some opportunities for infill redevelopment. All of our contemplation of this TC zone from the time the City presented it to us was that the Administration had finally committed to a capability reviewtherefore, we could think about turning these buildings [new buildings] so that they would not damage or reduce the livability of the small structures to the north. We found out on the same day that this went to the Planning Commission that we did not have a compatibility review on the horizon " Ms. Cromer stated that she was told if the neighborhood wanted a compatibility review, the citizens would have to go to the City Council to get some legislative intent.
Ms. Cromer said that her concern was not just the fact that the Planning Commission increased the height by five feet, but that it would create a 100-foot shadow during the winter months and the fact that the compatibility review process was lost. Ms. Cromer talked about the complication of addressing the members of the City Council and convincing them that the "issue was not ready for their attention and please send it back". She suggested that the proposal would be "damaging" to the planned National Register district to be approved that way it is proposed because it is not sensitive to the small dwellings that are owner/occupied. Ms. Cromer said that north of 400 South Street between 700 and 900 East Streets are one of the most vested parts of the neighborhood and possible developers should be made aware of this issue. She concluded by saying that she was "absolutely committed to protect these small very historic late nineteenth century propertiesIt would be very unfortunate to drive the present occupants out and to degrade them by placing them in a shadow". Ms. Cromer said that the Planning Commissioners were very insensitive to this issue and much more concerned about lost opportunities for developers rather than the people who had made a commitment to this area.
Mr. Ashdown asked Ms. Cromer if the development had design review, would she feel better about this? Ms. Cromer said that she would because the neighborhood is not "freaked out" about density but is asking that the buildings be oriented north/south rather than east/west.
Mr. Simonsen said that he agreed with Ms. Coffey that the height of a building is not a preservation issue, but he said that the compatibility issue should be part of the ordinance. He said that there is no shortage of apartment buildings next to small residential structures because they are part of the historic fabric of the downtown area. Mr. Simonsen said that the matter of scaling, materials, and textures are more detrimental factors than height. He suggested design guidelines that would address adjacent properties, setbacks, landscape buffers, open spaces between buildings, and so on.
Ms. Rowland said that backs of these buildings are going to degrade this neighborhood. She said that the design review should take into account the small residential structures and the surrounding development areas. She said that perhaps it would have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Littig said that he did not believe the Historic Landmark Commission should advocate the maximum height issue.
Mr. Knight suggested that if the Commission believes that a compatibility and design review is warranted in the proposed TC zone, the members could request that the Planning Division initiate a petition addressing these issues.
Ms. Coffey made another suggestion. She said that in lieu of a compatibility review the Commission could recommend that the TC zones be subjected to a conditional use so the Planning Commission would have to review the site and make certain it would be compatible to the adjacent properties.
Ms. Giraud said occupants who want open space, downtown, Capitol Hill, or the Avenues areas might not be where they should live because of the closeness of adjacent properties. She said that for years, the Juel Apartment building on 600 East has cast a shadow on the historic Mumford house. Ms. Giraud said that the shadow issue is a "huge conflict" and the ordinance could end up being extremely subjective.
The discussion continued with members of the Commission expressing his/her view of the issues.
Mr. Ashdown was not certain the Planning Commission would be the appropriate body for a compatibility review.
Mr. Simonsen was "struggling" with the shadow issue because there could be no end to the concept and could open the door for more complex issues. He said that some people love historic districts because of the tight knit fabric of structures. He added that is the way cities were built many years ago. Mr. Wilson also questioned the preservation issue.
Mr. Parvaz was looking for ways to justify design review, acting in the general interest of preservation.
Ms. Mickelsen wondered why the issue of a compatibility design review was not required for the entire city and not just certain areas. She said that the compatibility issue is built into the city's master plans.
Mr. Knight talked about the process of the overall issue and different neighborhood concerns.
Ms. Coffey said that some homeowners would consider a compatibility design review too restrictive.
Ms. Giraud discussed how the compatibility design review was not supported by the City Council in the past because of the affect it would have on constituents.
Ms. Coffey said that an option would be that the Commission could request that specific types of guidelines be put into the TC zoning text, in addition to the conditional use concept.
Ms. Giraud said that the compatibility design review issue is very complex and deserves much more study than the time allotted at this meeting. She said that Mr. Knight's suggestion of recommending a study for the subject area for a compatibility design review was a good one, but said that another option would be some sort of built-in design mechanism not to allow a solid block wall of buildings constructed at the maximum height. She said that the Commission could make recommendations in a letter that would be forwarded to the City Council.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that they consider incorporating a conditional use requirement for developments within the TC-Transit Corridor Zoning District and they also consider the development of design guidelines, which would help provide further clarification of the compatibility issue. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Ms. Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Review the draft of the new Historic Landmark Commission signage policy.
Mr. Knight presented his memorandum and draft regarding the signage policy for Commercial Signs in Historic Districts and Landmark Sites, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He stated that the original policy was written in 1984, and has proven difficult to interpret by both the Commission and the applicants. Mr. Knight said that several recent signage cases, such as the IBM building on South Temple and Fantastic Sam's on 1300 East, have been appealed to the Land Use Appeal's Board which highlighted the need to update the policy. He said that instead of being a section of the Historic Landmark Commission's policies and procedures, staff believes that the new guidelines should be a standalone document, possibly in a similar format to the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City. He indicated that the final version of the policy should include photos and graphics illustrating the standards, with both good and bad examples. Mr. Knight stated that the guidelines should be used in conjunction with the City's sign regulations found in the City's Zoning Ordinance. He added that in cases where the standards may conflict with the ordinance, the more restrictive would apply.
Mr. Knight described some of the issues that repeatedly come up when signage proposals are presented to staff, such as, 1) whether to stick to the "one sign per building" language of the existing policy. The Historic Landmark Commission has allowed additional signage such as monument signs for retain uses and noncontributing buildings; 2) whether to treat signs on contributing and non-contributing buildings differently; 3) whether to treat signs for retail uses and office uses differently; 4) handling commercial uses in historic residential buildings; 5) clarifying when the special exception for historic signage, in which the Board of Adjustment can approve signage on historic buildings that would not otherwise be allowed, is appropriate. This became an issue with the House of Blues last year. There should be a way to allow signage such as the historic Coke sign on the New Grand Hotel by making a special exception for historic buildings; 6) reinforcing the need for a comprehensive signage plan for each building, especially for buildings with multiple tenants; and 6) address problem areas in the districts, such as the 400 South strip corridor in Central City, the 300 West in Capitol Hill, and the 1300 East commercial area. In practice, we have different standards for these areas than other areas. Mr. Knight stated that these standards needed to be discussed and clarified to make them official.
The draft standards for Commercial Signs in Historic Districts and Landmark Sites consist of sections covering sign context, building types, sign types, inappropriate sign types, sign materials, sign content, sign lighting, historic signs, and specific district standards.
In closing, Mr. Knight suggested exploring these issues further with a subcommittee to be composed of members of the Historic Landmark Commission, interested property owners, neighborhood representatives, sign industry representatives, and developers. He added that the smaller group could identify other issues and formulate further policy revisions that could return to the full Commission for final review. Mr. Knight stated that it is staffs goal to complete this project by June of 2002.
Ms. Giraud stated that staff would further discuss how the signage policy should be broken up. She said that staff had a debate because she envisioned the policy to be divided by contributing versus non-contributing; retail versus professional offices; bed and breakfast and office conversions from residential buildings; and downtown buildings. Ms. Giraud said that the old Squire Natural building on South Temple and E Street prompted this discussion on a comprehensive signage policy because in 1992 the building was littered with signage.
Mr. Littig talked about the bed and breakfasts in the Avenues where white Christmas lights are on all year long. He also discussed very large "For Rent" signs that remain the year around, especially on the commercial properties on South Temple. Mr. Littig said that he believes a sign as small as a realtor's sign could be used for renting out commercial spaces, rather than the large banners. Mr. Simonsen said there should be time limit on signs such as those.
Mr. Young inquired about the number a person could call to report an illegal sign. It was suggested that a person could call Building Services. Mr. Knight said that some signs are not allowed, but the City does not enforce on those illegal signs either, which makes it problematic for the preservation staff.
Mr. Young also suggested the exploration of the inclusion of historic signs on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Mr. Knight said that the Commission has the option to do that. Mr. Young referred to the "Twirl Town" sign that has been covered with brown paint.
Mr. Simonsen said that he thought Mr. Knight's suggestion was good to form a subcommittee. He also said that the full Commission should be aware when the subcommittee meets so the members could follow up with the right input.
Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Commission create a subcommittee composed of members of the Historic Landmark Commission, staff, interested property owners, neighborhood representatives, sign industry representatives, developers, and any others that staff would deem necessary to explore the signage policy/ordinance. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mickelsen, Ms. Rowland, Ms. Simonsen, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Protasevich were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Mr. Knight asked who on the Historic Landmark Commission would be interested to serve on the subcommittee. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Parvaz, and Mr. Young volunteered to serve.
Mr. Parvaz inquired if a consultant should be engaged to assist with the signage policy, and Mr. Knight said that there was no money to do that, so staff would be putting this together. Mr. Parvaz wanted to insure that staff is making a commitment towards drafting text for a signage policy for commercial historic districts and landmark sites. Mr. Knight set a goal of taking two months to draft language for the full Commission to review.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Simonsen moved to adjourn the meeting. No second is required. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 6:10P.M.
•