SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
No field trip was scheduled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Dina Blaes, Susan Deal, Billie Ann Devine, Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Maren Jeppsen, William Littig, Elizabeth Mitchell, Orlan Owen, Oktai Parvaz, Robert Payne, Amy Rowland, and Robert Young. Wayne Gordon, Sarah Miller and Rob McFarland were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were William T. Wright, Planning Director, Joel Paterson, Preservation Planning Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
Chairperson, Dina Blaes, called the meeting to order at 4:00 P.M. Ms. Blaes announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. She stated that after hearing comments from the Commission, the meeting would be opened to the audience for comment, after which the meeting would be closed to the public and the Commission would render a decision based on the information presented. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Blaes asked members of the audience to turn their cellular telephones off.
A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
NEW MEMBER
Ms. Blaes introduced Ms. Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich as a new member of the Historic
Landmark Commission. She was welcomed by the other members and staff.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from the December 2, 1998 meeting. Mr. Owen seconded the motion. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from the December 16, 1998 meeting. Mr. Payne seconded the motion. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, Ms. Miller, and Mr. Young were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 030-98. at 250 North Almond Street. by Russ Watts of Almond Street Properties. L.C. requesting to construct a 17-unit condominium development.
Ms. Giraud presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and the staff’s recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. She stated that more detailed and completed plans should be submitted and the issues mentioned in the staff report be resolved, either at the subcommittee or the staff level, before returning to the full Commission for final approval.
Mr. Russ Watts, the applicant, was present. He displayed a sample board of the exterior materials and a sample of the proposed window design for the project. Mr. Watts said that he made the following adjustments after meeting with the Architectural Subcommittee:
1. The Palladian windows were eliminated.
2. Hedges would be planted between every driveway on Almond and West Temple Streets so one would see barriers of a green color rather than concrete.
3. There would be a meandering walkway along the West Temple side of the property.
4. There would be a park strip between the sidewalk and the road where greenery would be planted.
Mr. Watts said that the number of exterior materials was discussed in the subcommittee meeting. He said that it seemed to be the opinion of the subcommittee members that because the colors would be muted, all the different materials could be used for a change in texture. Mr. Watts also said that he chose to use the different dormer types to break up the roof elements and asked about design input from the members.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission:
• Ms. Deal led the discussion by inquiring about the pergola connection between the break in the buildings on Almond Street. Mr. Watts said that he talked with the people at "One Stop" (the Development Review Team) regarding the separation of the buildings. After some research was made, it was discovered that due to the radius on West Temple the side yard of the southern building on Almond Street could be cut on an angle which would allow an additional four feet, without having to obtain a variance in the setback. He said that the most recent plans showed the correct setback.
• Mr. Littig expressed his concerns with the amount of hardscape for the project and the possibility of campers, boats, trailers, and other recreational vehicles parked in front on the road and in the driveways, which would not be normal for the neighborhood. Mr. Watts said that in all the communities that he had developed, there has been a standard covenant which is called a "48-hour clause". He added that if someone owns a unit in one of the developments, that person could park an RV for 48 hours for loading and unloading. Mr. Watts said that the storage of snowmobiles, four-wheeled vehicles, and so forth would not be allowed because it would detract from the value of the development and the neighborhood.
Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
• Executive Session
Ms. Deal commented that she appreciated the applicant's response to the Architectural Subcommittee's suggestions. She added that the meeting was productive.
Ms. Blaes said that the staff's findings of fact had to be considered by the Commission. She said that according to the ordinance, the Historic Landmark Commission must determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape, as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council, and is in the best interest of the City:
Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance
(1) Scale and Form
(a) Height and Width; (b) Proportion of Principal Facades; (c) Roof Shape; and
(d) Scale of a Structure.
Staff's finding: The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of height and roof shape. The relationship between the height and the width is most visually compatible with the streetscape to the east, and when viewed from the west, the proposed structure would look like another "layer" stepping up the hill. The north elevation of the proposed development is compatible in scale and form with the structures on 300 North.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: There was no discussion of disagreement with the staffs finding.
(2) Composition of Principal Facades
(a) Proportion of Openings; (b) Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Face1des; (c) Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections; and (d) relationship of materials.·
Staffs finding: The proposed development is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids in facades, and in the rhythm of the bay windows and dormers. It is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of the relationship of materials.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: Ms. Deal talked about the variety of dormers in the proposed project. She said that "she would rather see it broken up somewhat." Mr. Littig discussed the proposed windows that would be above the door openings. Ms. Deal suggested that a square window be used rather than the proposed design. Mr. Owen suggested that the grid pattern be changed because a rhythm of two over one grid pattern had already been established in the project.
Ms. Deal referred to the number of exterior materials and said that the colors would be muted enough that the different materials would provide more interest to the project. Ms. Deal said she was concerned that if one less material was to be used, there would be a possibility that more synthetic stucco would be proposed. It was a consensus of the Commission members that they agreed with the staffs finding except that the relationship of materials was in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood.
(3) Relationship to Street
(a) Walls of Continuity; (b) Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets; (c) Directional Expression of Principal Elevation; and (d) Streetscape; Pedestrian Improvements.
Staffs finding: Staff finds that the developer has created "walls of continuity" that relate to the surrounding streetscapes and neighborhoods.
Historic Landmark Commission's finding: There was no discussion of disagreement with the staffs finding.
(4) Subdivision of Lots: This is not applicable to this case.
Mr. Payne inquired if the staff had the submitted plans when the staff report was written. He asked about the details and completed plans that the staff needed. Ms. Giraud said that she had difficulty seeing where one unit would begin and end so she believed a floor plan would help. She also talked about the difficulty of seeing the proposed roof shapes, where the copper roof would be, and how the dormers would relate to each other on the east elevation of the structure on West Temple and the west elevation of the structures on Almond Street. Ms. Giraud also said that a wall section was needed.
Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich inquired if wall and roof sections were required to be submitted. It was noted that Mr. Watts had displayed a sample of the proposed windows. Ms. Giraud pointed out that reference was not given on the plans for some of the windows.
Ms. Giraud explained that the staff’s recommendation for tabling the project was not because redesign work would be needed, but that it would create an opportunity to see more detailed plans.
It was decided that the meeting could be reopened to ask Mr. Watts some additional questions. Mr. Watts said that the details of the dormers and the depth of the windows would be provided, but would like to have some idea from the Commission if he was "headed in the right direction" with the design work. He also said that floor plans were included with his submittal for the December 2, 1998 meeting. It was discovered that the floor plans were submitted, but no wall or window sections were included.
Mr. Watts talked about framing the proposed structures with a 2" x 6" wall and then adding a 2" x4" wall behind that. The windows would then be set six inches into the wall.
Mr. Young said that in the subcommittee meeting, there was some discussion regarding skylights. Mr. Watts said that the decision was made not to replace the Palladian windows with skylights because there should be enough light in the foyer area of each unit. Mr. Watts added that he would have discussed the change in windows over the doorways, but did not believe there would be any objection to that suggestion. There was a short discussion regarding the barrel vaults over the entry doors.
Mr. Watts concluded that he would appreciate having some consensus among the
Commission members if the design could be approved. Ms. Blaes reclosed the meeting to public comment.
There was a short discussion regarding the set back and the pergola issues, as well as the wording of a motion.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 030-98 with the following stipulations: 1) the Commission members were in agreement with staff findings except for (2) Composition of Principle Facades, (d) Relationship of Materials. The Commission found that the material palette would be appropriate for this project; 2) plans which clarify the wall plane and the elevation changes needed to be submitted; 3) plans showing the window changes, as was discussed, of the proportion of openings above the doors was needed. The current shape of the windows was found not to be compatible with the design of the structures and that using a square or rectangle shape would make the windows more compatible; 4) plans for the pergola needed to be submitted; and 5) the above issues needed to be solved and plans needed to be submitted to staff for final review before a Certificate of Appropriateness could be issued. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Ms. Deal, Ms. Devine, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young voted "Aye". Mr. Littig was opposed. Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
Case No. 024-98. at 321 and 331 South 500 East (original address was 323-325 and
327-329 South 500 East. according to the Sanborn maps) by Jeff Jonas with Winthrop Court. L.C. requesting a review of the findings of fact and conclusions by the Economic Review Panel to consider an economic hardship for the demolition of two structures known as the Lunt Motel Annex. pursuant to Section 21A.34.020(K)(3) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Knight presented the report of findings of fact by the Salt Lake City Economic Review Panel by outlining the major issues of the case, a copy of which was filed with the minutes of this meeting. He said that the Historic Landmark Commission first reviewed the demolition request by Mr. Jonas for the two buildings at 321 and 331 South 500 East on August 19, 1998, where the Commission tabled the action, pending the eligibility of Mr. Rich Hall to serve as a member of the Economic Review Panel. Mr. Knight said that a question of conflict of interest arose because Mr. Hall had provided some of the financial data to the applicant as part of the economic hardship determination.
Mr. Knight said that Mr. Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney supplied Ms. Giraud with a letter that said that the City Attorney concluded that there was no conflict of interest that would render Mr. Hall ineligible. He said that the Commission needed to determine whether or not the Economic Review Panel's findings of fact were acceptable. A copy of the letter was filed with the minutes of this meeting.
There was a short discussion whether or not the meeting could be opened to the public for comment since this was a continuation of the December 16, 1998 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Mr. Wright suggested that the meeting be opened to the applicant to comment if he desired. Mr. Jeff Jonas, the applicant, was present and stated that he had no comments at this time.
As there were no questions, concerns, and comments made by the Historic Landmark Commission, Ms. Blaes opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests, Ms. Blaes closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
Mr. Payne suggested that a brief overview be given of this case. Ms. Blaes said that the Economic Review Panel met twice and concluded that Mr. Jonas met the criteria in the ordinance to meet the economic hardship. Mr. Wright read Section
21A.34.(K)(3)(c)(i. through iii) from the Salt Lake City Code:
i. Finding of Economic Hardship. If after reviewing all of the evidence, the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the application of the standards set forth in Subsection K2 of this section results in economic hardship, then the Historic Landmark Commission shall issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition.
ii. Denial of Economic Hardship. If the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the application of the standards set forth in Subsection K2 of this section does not result in economic hardship then the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition shall be denied.
iii. Consistency with the Economic Review Panel Report. The Historic Landmark Commission decision shall be consistent with the conclusions reached by the Economic Review Panel unless, based on all of the evidence and documentation presented to the Historic Landmark Commission, the Historic Landmark Commission finds by a vote of three-fourths majority of a quorum present, that the Economic Review Panel acted in an arbitrary manner, or that its report was based on an erroneous finding of a material fact."
Ms. Blaes said that the reason why action was not taken at the meeting on December 16, 1998 regarding the findings of the Economic Review Panel was due to the conflict of interest issue that was raised by one of the panel members. She said that the Commission wanted a legal opinion on that matter. She said that the conclusion was that a majority of the members of the Economic Review Panel voted that there was an economic hardship with Mr. Jonas' properties on 500 East.
Mr. Young discussed the concept of the City not allowing a demolition permit to be issued until plans for the building permit was submitted. Mr. Wright said that in order for the operation to be consistent with other applications, a demolition permit would not be issued until a full set of drawings was submitted and approved by this Commission.
Mr. Young moved that Case No. 024-98 be approved pending the application of a building permit for this case. Ms. Mitchell seconded the motion.
Mr. Parvaz said that based on the Salt Lake City Code, documentation for applications for the demolition of structures in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District would be required. He said that in Section 21A.34.020.(F)(1)(c) and (2)(c) of the Salt Lake City Code, it states: "Materials Submitted with Application. The application shall include photographs, construction drawings, and other documentation such as an architectural or massing model, window frame sections and samples deemed necessary to consider the application properly and completely, and applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition shall also submit a reuse plan for the property."
Mr. Parvaz talked about the quality of construction drawings that should be submitted. Ms. Giraud said that there were detailed requirements on Mr. Parvaz's memorandum which was submitted to the Commission at the December 2, 1998 Historic Landmark Commission meeting, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Littig inquired about the bonding issue. Mr. Wright said that the issuance of a bond was one of the requirements for a reuse plan before a demolition permit could be granted. He also pointed out that a demolition permit would not be issued until the Historic Landmark Commission saw a full set of developed drawings of the reuse plan.
Mr. Parvaz said that the description of the reuse requirement was not very clear. He suggested that an amendment be made to the motion to include documentation of the structures, as per the ordinance. Mr. Young amended the motion.
Mr. Young moved that Case No.024-98 be approved pending the application of a building permit for this case. Further that documentation be made on the existing buildings before demolition, as per the Salt Lake City Code. The second still stood by Ms. Mitchell. Ms. Devine, Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Jeppsen, Mr. Littig, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Owen, Mr. Parvaz, Mr. Payne, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Deal was in a state of recusation. Ms. Blaes, as Chairperson, did not vote. Mr. Gordon, Mr. McFarland, and Ms. Miller were not present for the vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. Blaes said that on January 20, 1999, a special meeting has been called to discuss the economic hardship process and basic real estate issues. Ms. Giraud said that after the December 16, 1998 meeting, several members expressed concerns about the lack of knowledge of real estate workings and the effect real estate has on historic buildings. She concluded by saying that the Commission would have an in-house session on real estate and preservation issues.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Ms. Blaes asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Young so moved to adjourn the meeting. It was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 5:00P.M.