SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Meeting Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 326
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:29:53 PM. Audio recordings of the Historic Landmark Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Historic Landmark Commission meeting were: Chairperson Thomas Brennan, Vice Chairperson Sheleigh Harding; Commissioners David Richardson, Rachel Quist, Heather Thuet and Charles Shepherd. Commissioner Kenton Peters was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nora Shepard, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay, Planning Manager; Carl Leith, Senior Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Amy Thompson, Associate Planner; Michelle Moeller, Administrative Secretary and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.
FIELD TRIP NOTES:
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Historic Landmark Commissioners present were Rachel Quist and Thomas Brennan. Staff members in attendance were Michaela Oktay, Carl Leith and Amy Thompson.
The following sites were visited:
• Kensington Apartments - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.
• 1030 E 2nd Avenue - Staff gave an overview of the proposal.
APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 4, 2015, MINUTES 5:30:24 PM
MOTION 5:30:33 PM
Commissioner Shepherd moved to approve the minutes from June 4, 2015. Commissioner Harding seconded the motion. Commissioner Quist abstained from voting as she was not present at the subject meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR 5:30:53 PM Chairperson Brennan stated he had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Harding stated she had nothing to report.
DIRECTOR’S REPORT 5:31:04 PM
Ms. Nora Shepard, Planning Director, stated she had nothing to report.
PUBLIC COMMENT 5:31:11 PM
Chairperson Brennan opened the Public Comment Period, seeing no one in the audience wished to speak; Chairperson Brennan closed the Public Comment Period.
PUBLIC HEARINGS 5:31:32 PM
ISSUSES ONLY HEARING
Kensington Apartments Site at approximately 180 N Main Street, 36 East 200 North and 48 East 200 North – CRSA Architects, on behalf of owner Garbett Homes, is requesting approval to relocate one contributing building and one City landmark building, to demolish the existing parking garage structure, to construct a new parking garage and to construct a new apartment building in the Capitol Hill Historic District. A landmark building (J. Golden Kimball House) and a contributing building (Moroni H. Kimball House) would be physically moved south during phased construction of the new parking garage, then relocated back to or close to their current positions on top of the new parking garage upon its completion. The existing parking garage structure provides the majority of the parking for the Kensington Apartment buildings which occupy the rest of this site to the west. The site is zoned RMF-75 (High Density Multi-Family Residential District), within the H Historic Preservation Overlay in the Capitol Hill local historic district and is located in City Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. These applications involve relocation of historic resources and new construction in a local historic district and must be reviewed by the Historic Landmark Commission. At this initial stage of review, this will be an Issues Only Public Hearing to evaluate key issues raised by the proposals. No applications will be approved or denied at this meeting. (Staff contact: Carl Leith, (801) 535-7758 or carl.leith@slcgov.com.)
a. Relocation of J Golden Kimball House, 36 E 200 N – This is a contributing building within the Capitol Hill Historic District and is identified as a City Landmark Building on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Proposals would move this building during construction and relocate it close to its current location. Case Number PLNHLC2015-00247.
b. Relocation of Moroni H Kimball House, 48 E 200 N – This is a contributing building in the Capitol Hill Historic District. Proposals would move this building during construction and relocate it back to its current location. Case Number PLNHLC2015-00248.
c. Demolition of Existing Parking Garage, Kensington Apartments – This is an accessory structure and is identified as a contributing building in the Capitol Hill Historic District. Proposals would demolish this building and replace it with a new parking garage. Case Number PLNHLC2015-00249.
d. New Construction of Parking Garage and Apartment Building – The proposal is to construct a new parking garage with 91 stalls on five levels, and a new 32 unit apartment building on three and two floors above and behind the proposed new parking garage. Case Number PLNHLC2015-00250.
e. Special Exceptions – In order to construct the new parking garage, special exception approvals are sought for encroachments into required setbacks at the southeast corner, reflecting the existing setbacks established by existing structures in the new construction proposals. Case Number PLNHLC2015-00251.
Mr. Carl Leith, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the proposal as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated the presentation was and issues only hearing and asked the Commission for input and direction on the project.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The final locations for the two buildings.
Mr. Bryson Garbett, Garbett Homes, reviewed the history of the Kensington Apartments, the improvements that were made to the existing structure and the reason behind the proposal. He reviewed the layout and height of the structures and asked the Commission to give input on the proposal.
Mr. Wally Cooper, CRSA Architects, thanked Staff for their work on the project. He reviewed other preservation projects in the city and around the neighborhood, the setbacks for the project and the restoration that would be done to preserve the two historic homes on the property. He reviewed the process required to move the homes on and off the property.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following.
• The 1898 Sanborn maps showing the history of the subject area.
• The elevation and grade for the existing structure and what the elevation would be after the homes were moved.
• Issues with repositioning the homes.
• If there was a plan in place just in case human remains were found on the property.
• The relationship of the proposed housing to the cemetery.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:25:26 PM
Chairperson Brennan opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Cindy Cromer stated Bryson Garbett was her neighbor and was familiar with moving historic buildings as she was from the south where historic buildings are often relocated. She stated she was concerned with the loss of the parking structure because there were not many structures left in the city that were built during this time period. Ms. Cromer stated her biggest concern was the co-location of the parking ramp and the entrance to the building. She stated she supported moving the historic buildings as long as the historic building retained prominence in the site context.
Mr. Eric Jergensen, Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, stated he appreciated the work of the Commission in trying to protect the historic neighborhoods in the Salt Lake City. He stated the Community Council had not reviewed the details of the proposal or met with the Developer. Mr. Jergensen stated their concerns were over moving the buildings, the impact to parking in the neighborhood, the overall design and massing impact to the neighboring residences and the overall preservation of the historic structures. He stated the developers are wonderful but the area should be preserved and the master plan followed.
Mr. Darryl Thomas stated his condo looks over the subject properties and he was appalled at the parking situation in the neighborhood. He stated the proposal would help with the parking issues, improve the view and make it a safer place to live. Mr. Thomas stated the proposal was an improvement to the neighborhood.
Ms. Victoria Collard stated she agreed with the comments made by the public but was worried about the parking issues the project would create. She stated to increase the number of housing units in the area would be detrimental to the historic nature of the neighborhood and the quality of life for the residences.
Chairperson Brennan read the following card:
Wanda Pillow and Laurence Parker- We own a historic single family home directly across from proposed development and raise two major issues 1) proposal changes but does not improve historic residential neighborhood. It increases capacity and density too much and will increase street traffic which is already at maximum capacity. Parking will not address street traffic. 2) Impact on surrounding residential area:
a. Decreases home ownership potential
b. Decreases value of existing single family homes
c. Dramatically impacts scene scape and landscape limiting city and mountain views on 200 North and creating instead a dense, urban apartment and parking landscape. We ask proposal be tasked for further discussion.
Chairperson Brennan closed the Public Hearing.
The Applicant stated they had the same concerns as the public and would address the concerns as the proposal moved forward however, the neighborhood should not remain static and should sensitively evolve.
The Commission urged the Developer to work with the Community to address the concerns of the neighbors on the proposal.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
• Projects that had been done in the City.
• The number of parking stalls for the proposal.
The Commission made the following observations
• There was a potential for archeologically deposits on the site that should be properly cared for.
• Design was thoughtful and masterful.
• Great job with the height and not maxing out the vertical setbacks.
• No technical issues with moving the homes.
• Long term historic precedence was slowly degraded as historic homes are moved.
• Need to encourage Kensington Residences to park in the structure and not on the street.
The Commission discussed the following:
• An archeological plan should be included in the final proposal.
• A plan for how to address human remains found on the property.
• Encourage the Developer to work closely with the neighborhood and Community Council to address concerns.
• Concerns over the massing of the structure.
• The location of the parking garage entry.
• The need to address pedestrian and vehicular traffic on the site.
• Drawings clearly reflecting the location of the parking structure in relation to the property line were needed.
• The proximity of new construction to areas where currently nothing existed behind them.
• The setback for the Jake Olden Kimball home should remain the same after the relocation.
• The importance of addressing the cemetery sensitively to preserve its serenity
The Commission and Applicant discussed the next steps for the proposal.
6:58:20 PM
Contributing Status and Major Alterations at approximately 1030 E 2nd Avenue – Dave Richards, the architect representing the property owner, is requesting approval for Major Alterations to the front facade of a commercial building located at the above listed address in the Avenues Historic District. The property is listed as a contributing building in the 2007 Avenues Reconnaissance Level Survey and 2013 supplement. The applicant is requesting:
a. That the Historic Landmark Commission re-evaluate the contributing status of the building and change the status to non-contributing.
b. Consideration of alterations to the front facade based on the Commission’s determination of contributing status. The request includes covering the existing brick wall surfaces with sandstone panels, replacement of the fascia, replacement of all existing storefront windows, replacement of the storefront entry door and new sandstone entry columns.
The building is located in the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district, in City Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. Depending on the Commission’s decision regarding the contributing status of this building, this type of request must be reviewed as a Major Alteration. (Staff contact: Amy Thompson, (801) 535-7281, or amy.thompson@slcgov.com). Case Number PLNHLC2015-00305
Ms. Amy Thompson, Associate Planner, gave an overview of the proposal as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff was recommending that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding item A and deny item B as listed in the Staff Report.
Mr. Dave Richards, applicant, reviewed the issues with the deteriorated structure, the changes to the building over the years and that the brick was the only remaining material from the original structure. He stated the two buildings were actually one building and asked if requiring the owner to repair the existing façade would enhance the historical district or serve to drive property owners away due to unnecessary restrictions. Mr. Richards read the definition of a contributing structure as stated in the code and stated the subject building did not meet the definition.
Mr. Dennis Glass, Property Owner, stated he wanted to rebuild the property to make it more appealing to the neighborhood. He stated the building was not historical in nature and had been substantially changed over the years.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:13:52 PM
Chairperson Brennan opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one wished to speak to the petition; Chairperson Brennan closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission Staff discussed the following:
• The changes to the neighboring structures and their contributing status.
The Commissioners made the following observations:
• The history of the neighboring building was not a factor in the proposal.
• The building was in poor shape but the features were still intact.
• The window system matched the historic photos and was a replaceable element.
• Minor changes would be feasible.
• Should not use deferred maintenance as an excuse to change the rating of the structure in a historic district.
• Replacement of the windows with something that kept with the character, scale and rhythm of the original structure could be appropriate.
MOTION 7:18:48 PM
Commissioner Shepherd stated regarding PLNHLC2015-00305, based on Staff’s analysis and findings listed in the Staff Report, and the information in the 2007 & 2013 Avenues Reconnaissance Level Surveys, The Historic Landmark Commission finds that the building at 1030 Second Avenue, that its character defining features remain and he moved to reconfirm that the building was a “B” rated contributing structure to the Avenues Historic District. Based on the analysis and findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and the proposal presented, he moved that the Historic Landmark Commission approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the fascia and replacement of the storefront windows subject to the following conditions:
1. New fascia will not extend/project beyond the profile of the existing fascia.
2. Repair and or upgrading the energy efficiency of the existing storefront window will be pursued as an option before replacement is considered. Replacement should meet the standards as appropriate and as delegated to Staff.
3. To deny the request for the Certificate of Appropriateness for the exterior wall cladding, door replacement and entry way upgrades.
Commissioner Thuet seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:21:39 PM
Commissioner Thuet left for the evening.
Request to reduce the boundaries of a City Landmark Site (Malcolm and Elizabeth Keyser House) at approximately 381 E. 11th Avenue – Larry Perkins is requesting approval from the City to alter the boundaries of a Landmark Site. This would require a zoning map amendment and the City Council is the final decision making body. The applicant proposes to subdivide part of the property in order to create a new buildable lot in the north-east portion of the current property. Currently, the site contains a single family building, the Malcolm and Elizabeth Keyser House and its associated grounds. The proposed new lot would be approximately 7,200 square feet in size. The existing property is zoned SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential District) and is approximately 0.78 acres (33,977 Square feet) in size. The entire property is a City Landmark site and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The subject property is located within Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. This proposal is being referred to the Historic Landmark Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com). Case Number PLNHLC2015-00403
a. Amendment to the Zoning Map – An amendment to the zoning map is required to remove this portion of the site from the H-Historic Preservation Overlay District. The HLC is being asked to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council about the proposed change in accordance with 21A.34.020 D – The Adjustment or Expansion of Boundaries of an H Historic Preservation Overlay District and the Revocation of the Designation of a Landmark Site.
b. Major Alteration of a Historic Landmark Site – Subdividing the property would alter the established property boundary. Altering the boundaries of a Landmark Site is considered a Major Alteration. The Historic Landmark Commission may approve a Major Alteration. The applicant will be required to follow the Subdivision process for creation and recordation of the new lot conditioned upon City Council approving the Zoning Map Amendment.
Mr. David Gellner, Principal Planner, gave an overview of the proposal as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Historic Landmark Commission reconfirm the “B” rating, approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the fascia and replacement of the storefront windows and deny the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed exterior wall cladding, door replacement and new entryway columns as outline in the petition.
Mr. Larry Perkins, property owner, reviewed the reasoning for removing the status and history of the property. Mr. Perkins expressed his concern over statements in the Staff Report requesting the Historic overlay be removed. He stated he was not asking for the status to change but to create a lot within the existing lot. Mr. Perkins reviewed the proposal and the challenges with maintaining the large lot. He stated the proposal would make the lot more manageable and would not change the historic nature of the lot.
Mr. Wally Cooper, architect, reviewed the survey that gave the property its historic status and that changing the lot size would not change the overlay district or the nature of the lot.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:49:21 PM
Chairperson Brennan opened the Public Hearing.
Chairperson Brennan read the flowing card:
Kurt Gee and Deidra Duffin- one of the most attractive aspects of the avenues is that it is well established; free from new development, noise, construction, traffic. We chose to buy our home in large part because of the character of our neighborhood. We are opposed to any change in zoning that will allow further development in our neighborhood in the short term the neighborhood will suffer a disruption of peace, serenity and livability that we enjoy. In the long term our neighborhood will suffer another substantial blow to its character, spatial openness and charm. One need look no further than South Temple to see how zoning changes can adversely affect the character of a neighborhood where we once had interesting architecture and beautiful properties we now have numerous bland and unattractive commercial properties. We do not feel that just because someone wants to change zoning solely for personal benefit that the city should just go along. The area was zoned the way it is for a good reason. Changing that will be a change for the worst.
Ms. Cindy Cromer stated she had visited the property and it was twice the size of the parcels she owned. She stated she had an appreciation of the maintenance of the landscape on the property but the problem was that there was no way to apply register status to a vacant parcel which was not a historic landscape. Ms. Cromer stated the City needed to retain its authority to review the design of the new house and could not require a specific architect to design the new house, which was the problem because the design of the new house could have a significantly negative impact on what was clearly a cultural resource. She stated there needed to be incentives for historic preservation such as in other cities that allows two primary structures on the same lot. Ms. Cromer stated her solution would be to add this tool to the ordinance. She stated this would allow the Commission to review the design of the new house and insure it did not detract from the Keiser Mansion and the ownership issue then would be resolved through a condominium process.
Chairperson Brennan closed the Public Hearing. The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• If the lot was subdivided would the vacant parcel be excluded from the historic site as per the code.
o That was Staff’s opinion.
o If a Certificate of Appropriateness were approved and the lot subdivided and developed upon it may also warrant a new national register nomination.
• If the property was a standalone site or in a district.
o It was a standalone site.
Mr. Perkins asked what the rule was or the requirement that stated the parcel had to be removed from the overlay.
Ms. Oktay stated altering a landmark would require a Certificate of Appropriateness to alter the site by a subdivision. She reviewed the request, intent and process for the petition.
Mr. Perkins stated he failed to understand why creating a new lot would change the boundary of the landmark site.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The Commission’s role and the City Council’s role in the decision.
• Needed to determine the appropriateness and contribution of the original parcel to the character and status of the property.
• The language in the ordinance regarding the purpose of the Historic Districts encouraging redevelopment.
o The intent was to allow for lot line adjustments.
• The Subdivision of the Tracy House and how it affected the overall property.
• If the discussion would be different if the lot were smaller.
• The language in the Code regarding the designation of a landmark site and if the Commission should be reviewing or suggesting changes to a designated site.
• If the subdivided property could be sold, developed and the review process for such a proposal.
• The reasoning behind changing the boundary for the site if the lot was created.
• If deed restrictions could be placed on the new lot.
The Commissioners made the following observations:
• Staff Report was well done and well reasoned.
• The site was primarily architecturally significant.
• Was a unique big lot but what if it was a unique small lot, would the concerns still be the same.
• If the parcel was a significant character defining feature of the property.
• There are very few Avenues lots e still intact and that was truly relevant to the home and the area.
• Charter of the home was defined by the site.
• Other ways to develop the property.
• Subdividing a prairie style house would be inappropriate.
o Other prairie homes have smaller lots
MOTION 8:19:36 PM
Commissioner Harding stated regarding PLNHLC2015-00403, based on the analysis and findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and the proposal presented, she
moved that the Historic Landmark Commission deny the request to alter a
Landmark Site for the proposed subdivision of the Malcolm and Elizabeth Keyser
House at 381 E. 11th Avenue. Commissioner Richardson seconded the motion. Commissioners Richardson, Quist and Harding voted “aye”. Commissioner Shepherd
abstained from voting. The motion passed unanimously.
8:21:25 PM
Commissioner Harding stated regarding PLNHLC2015-00403, based on the analysis and findings listed in the Staff Report, testimony and the proposal presented, she moved that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a negative recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the request to amend the zoning map to remove a portion of the site from the H-Historic Preservation Overlay District for the proposed subdivision of the property at 381 E. 11th Avenue. Commissioner Richardson seconded the motion.
The Commission and Staff discussed the meaning of the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission and Staff discussed the next steps for the proposal.
The meeting adjourned at 8:23:24 PM.