SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
The field trip was canceled.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Burke Cartwright, Thomas Cerruti, Susan Deal, Sandra Hatch, Rob McFarland, Bruce Miya, Lynn Morgan, Dina Williams, and Robert Young. Wallace Cooper, William Damery, Maren Jeppsen, Sarah Miller, and Heidi Swinton were excused.
Present from the Preservation Planning Staff were Joel Paterson, Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Lisa Miller, Planners. William T. Wright, Planning Director, was also present.
The meeting was called to order at 4:30 P.M. by Acting Chairperson, Bruce Miya. Mr. Miya announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda. He 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.
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 corrected minutes from the June 4, 1997 meeting. It was seconded by Ms. Deal. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, the Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
Ms. Deal moved to approve the minutes from the June 18, 1997 meeting after a correction is made in the attendance. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, the Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
PREVIOUS CASES
Case No. 017-96. at 263 NQ. Almond Street. by Russ Watts of Watts Corporation. requesting final approval of a new 34-unit condominium project.
Ms. Elizabeth 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. A small correction in the date of the Architectural Subcommittee meeting in the Staff report was noted by Ms. Giraud. Ms. Giraud discussed the criteria of the standards on which the Commission would base its decision for the project, which was included in the staff report. Photographs of other buildings in the neighborhood were circulated.
Ms. Williams stated that she wanted to have clarification of the Staff's findings included in the Staff report. A short discussion followed, as the findings an analysis portion of the Staff report was discussed. Ms. Williams said that she was in accordance with the Staff's findings and analysis.
Mr. Miya indicated that copies of a current agreement with the Watts Corporation and Salt Lake City, were circulated to the members, as a replacement to the earlier draft which was included in the Staff report.
Mr. Russ Watts, the applicant, was present. He used a briefing board to further demonstrate the project, showing the revised plans. Mr. Watts said that Watts Corporation had been in the process of working through the development of the site on Almond Street since August of 1995. He said that the process had been "laborious", not only for the Watts Corporation, but for the Commission and the Planning Staff.
A scale model of the project was displayed, as Mr. Watts presented the following points of interest:
Design -The 34-unit condominium development would be a continuous single building which would step back and forth, as well as up and down, according to the grade of the elevation. There would be view openings at intervals on the east elevation. Mr. Watts said that there would be 132 corners on the building. The stepped-out balconies would have decorative metal railings. There would be curb and gutter, as well as a sidewalk around the perimeter of the project. The applicant would work with the City Engineering Division on the ADA (American Disabilities Act) issues for the sidewalk on 300 North. The five vehicular entries into the complex would be off West Temple. There would be pedestrian entries off Almond and West Temple Streets. There would be a brick element around all entries into the building. The streets would be repaved.
Parking- The 80 stalls for off-street parking would be underground, including guest parking. The 50-foot-long vehicular loading/unloading area would be on West Temple, situated so it would not block the normal traffic flow.
Materials - A color board was displayed showing the colors of the proposed exterior materials for the project. The base of the building and the parking garages would be red sandstone, like Mr. Watts pointed out that is seen throughout the Avenues area. The first level would be a sand-molded brick, a "Williamsburg-type" brick. The next level would be the (E.I.F.S.) stucco system in two coordinating colors of tan.
Windows - The wood clad windows would be a key element to the development. The windows would set back approximately five inches in the openings, which would create shadows showing the depth of the windows. Several bumped-out bay windows were added for interest. The windows and railings would be gunstock gray with a dark gray trim. The covers over the bay windows would be copper which would be a brownish color.
Parapet/Mechanical - The detailing of the parapet would hide the roof-top mechanical systems from the street. The systems that would be seen from other buildings on the east side, would be screened. The color of the parapet would match the color of the stucco.
Landscaping - Another important element of the project to make it successful is the landscaping, which was reviewed in the Architectural Subcommittee meeting. Mr. Watts had been meeting with the City Forester for recommendations to the type of trees that would be planted. The older trees would be saved that have been on the property for years. Five-inch caliper Linden trees would be planted. Conifers would be planted to soften the corners of the property. Trimmed hedges would be planted to line the walkways and the building entries. The planter boxes, by all the entries into the building on top of the parking deck, would have an automated water system.
Mr. Watts said that he voluntarily met with the people of the community, in which the Almond Street property is located, to try to develop a workable solution. He said that Mr. Eric Jergensen, the Chair of the Capitol Hill Community Council, was present to discuss the details of an agreement which had been signed.
Mr. Jergensen, who resides at 53 East 200 North, spoke of the many meetings that have occurred for this project, with the City representatives, the City Council representative, and people in the community. Mr. Jergensen said that the result had been a signed agreement between Russ and Kevin Watts of Watts Corporation, Bonnie Mangold, President of the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association (CHHNA), and himself, representing the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He pointed out that all issues in the agreement would not pertain to this Commission, but would be of interest. Mr. Jergensen reported that if the Historic Landmark Commission would agree to this document, then the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association would not appeal an approval from this Commission for this project. He further said that an appeal from any other parties would be discouraged and further meetings would be held to strategize the implementation of this agreement.
Mr. Jergensen summarized the eleven points of the agreement, which were the following: 1) the height of the building to the north and west would be stepped down so as the view corridor would not be blocked from other buildings; 2) the mature Chinese Elm tree would remain on the northwest corner of the property until such a time that the Linden trees, which would be planted, would be mature enough to form the same "softening" element as the elm tree; 3) one-way traffic to flow to the south on West Temple; 4) connecting the existing island in the intersection of West Temple and 300 North to the property, that would form a bulb out, landscaping the area, provide a perimeter sidewalk, and a landscape easement in favor of the Watts Corporation that would indemnify the corporation from any liability of any possible occurrence on that property; 5) building a 34-unit project; 6) reduction of the building mass on the north side; 7) the City to install a stop sign at Quince and 300 North Streets; 8) the City would work with the neighborhood in order to implement traffic calming measures on 300 North; 9) every precaution would be taken by Watts Corporation to eliminate seismic effects or degradation during construction to the surrounding homes and buildings, and photographs would be taken for documentation; 10) all parties would have sole discretion to represent their viewpoints on the project; and 11) any appeal efforts would be negated.
The following questions, concerns, and comments were made by the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Williams led the discussion by inquiring about the exterior lighting solutions for the project. Mr. Watts said that there would be two forms of lighting used; one would be recessed deck lighting so the light would be directed onto the balcony sections, and the second would be ground lights around the base of the trees, that would project shadows of the trees onto the building. There would be no pole lights or other lights directed off the building. A short discussion followed.
• Mr. Miya asked if the reduction in the massing, on the revised plans for the project, decreased the number of proposed units. Mr. Watts said that it would not. Mr. Jergensen indicated that the community had agreed to the proposed 34 units in the complex.
• Mr. Cartwright noted that the community expressed their concerns about the massing of the building rather the density, also the historical elements to the building as regards to the neighbors to the north.
Mr. Miya opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Historic Landmark Commission.
• Ms. Bonnie Mangold, who resides at 326 No. Almond Street, stated that she was president of the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association, and said that she was a "stickler" for accuracy. She pointed out some discrepancies on the scale model of the project, pertaining to the grade level of 300 North in comparison to the building heights. She circulated photographs of buildings in the area, and stated that the proposed condominium project would be the most massive building in the area. She further discussed the importance of the view corridor on Almond Street. Ms. Mangold said that the reason why there is such a disparity of buildings in the area was because in the 1970's, prior to historic preservation being important to the community, many of the old homes on Vine Street were trashed and the high-rise condominiums were built. She expressed her concern that the massing of the proposed project was compared to the massing of the high-rise condominiums. She stated, "If those did not exist, and you were to compare this building to the mass and scale of the historic buildings, which were to the north and the south, then obviously there are still considerable problems with the scale and massing of this building. We would ask you to keep that in mind."
Ms. Mangold introduced the subject of the copper roofs that would be over the bay windows. She expressed her concerns about, not only the sun reflecting off the copper which would shine in the eyes of drivers, but the people who live in the homes to the east and the west who would be looking at that reflection. Mr. Miya pointed out that within a short period of time, the environment would dull the copper eliminating the problem.
Ms. Mangold concluded by stating, "For this project to be approved, it must be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and the streetscape, as illustrated in the design standards that you have adopted. Again, we ask you to do that which you are responsible for. I have signed the agreement and our neighborhood association will not appeal your decision, but we ask you to do the best for our historic district that you can. Thank you."
Ms. Kris Hopfenbeck, who resides at 333 No. Quince Street, discussed the poor quality of a newly constructed home on Quince Street and inquired if the City would have quality control over the Watts' project. Ms. Williams asked if she was concerned about the poor craftsmanship or the design of that new home which had been approved. Ms. Hopfenbeck said that she had seen the drawings, of the home, which she said made the home look "wonderful" and she said that she did not believe the home that had been constructed is the same home as what this Commission approved.
Ms. Regina Perry, who resides at 330 No. Quince Street, also spoke of the quality control of that new home. She urged the City to implement a monitoring system to make sure that the Watts' project will be in compliance, when completed. Ms. Perry also expressed her concerns about the parking situation in the neighborhood.
Upon receiving no further requests, Mr. Miya closed the hearing to the public and the Commission went into executive session.
Executive Session
A short discussion followed. Ms. Deal said that she would like to read a motion for this project. Ms. Hatch inquired if the motion included the quality control concerns. Ms. Deal said that it did.
Ms. Deal moved to approve Case No. 017-96, based on the following:
1) The City has entered into an agreement with the applicant of which we have no authority to override or supersede. We consider the City's agreement to have the following impact on our decision:
a) The density of the project has been approved by the City and will result in the construction of a large, multi-family building on the site. We are in the position of having to examine a specific building type to determine whether or not it meets applicable ordinance standards. The approach taken is the same as if we were being asked to examine the proposed plans for a fire station or a school, two building types which by their very nature cannot be of single family residential scale, yet are often, also by their nature, found in single family neighborhoods. The Ordinance directs us to find whether or not new development is compatible with the character of existing development
• (21A.34.020.A.2), not necessarily congruent.
b) The base zoning of RMF-45 is a given and any arguments pertaining to whether or not such zoning is appropriate for this site is out of the HLC's purview and considered irrelevant to both our discussion and the applicable standards of the Ordinance.
2) As evidenced the first paragraph of a letter submitted in opposition to the proposed project by the Capitol Hill Historic Neighborhood Association (included with the Staff report), the Association feels that because their cause failed to prevail during the petition to downzone, their issues were not addressed. We address and consider specific points in their letter as follows:
a) CHHNA states that because the agreement between the City and Watts contains a provision for the City to submit a favorable Staff report to the HLC, we must "discard all input" from the Staff report. Every case that comes before this body requires that the members study the project drawings and site and determine for themselves whether or not they find the Staff's analysis viable. Regardless of what interests dictate the direction of a Staff report, it does not affect our ability to analyze the arguments at face value.
b) CHHNA states that a purpose and intent of the Ordinance is to "implement the adopted plans of the city ". The Ordinance, when adopted in 1995, included a provision which legally updated the community master plan when the new zoning and the master plans were not consistent in terms of allowable density. While it may not be the zoning requested by the neighborhood association, the base zoning of RMF-45 on this property is consistent with (and legally part of) the community master plan.
c) The letter further details the master plan by citing a passage that states in "Retention and enhancement of the present internal character and avoidance of intrusive and out-of-scale structures are the key recommendations of the Master Plan." This project, given its location on the transitional edge of the district is neither intrusive nor out-of-scale with nearby structures. There are over 25 sites within historic districts that have base zoning of RMF-35 or greater and no evidence has been presented to this Commission which shows that any of these sites have failed to allow the retention and enhancement of the character of the districts. There has been no evidence, other than strictly anecdotal, which has shown that this development will not meet the goals of the master plan.
This letter continues on to state that it is the charge of the historic district and the HLC to "protect and preserve areas of the city and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance." Once again, though the neighborhood association is in opposition to this project they have presented no empirical or quantifiable data to show that allowing this development will fail to protect and preserve the historic district.
d) In their letter and reiterated in a copy of a memo from the Planning Staff regarding the master plan update for the community (included with the letter), the neighborhood association states that the HLC has the power to override base zoning regulations, especially pertaining to structure height. This is a power that the HLC has used in the past, most recently on the Brigham Street Apartments. The base zoning of RMF-75 was overridden in favor of an approximate 60-foot height limit, more in keeping with the surrounding structures in the historic district. The HLC has requested on more than one occasion that this applicant reduce the height of this project in an effort to make it less massive in scale, especially on the north side, where the project was most likely to impact single-family structures in terms of size. The reduction in height of parts of the building, while not wholesale, allowed for a more varied massing, thus making it more compatible with the neighborhood. Once again, we are being asked to examine a specific building type, a large, multi-family structure. Just like a fire station could not have 8-foot high garage doors to blend in with a neighborhood scale, this project will not fit in a one or two story building and cannot be analyzed in those terms. It is also noted that the essence of the Planning Staff memo regarding the master plan update is that the Staff does not believe a 35-foot height restriction is either necessary or advised for the Capitol Hill Protective Overlay Zone, which includes the historic district.
e) The letter cites a statement for a Commission member comparing the project to something that might be seen on South Temple. The Association argues that it is inappropriate to have buildings in one district which are indigenous to another. The fact is that the project represents a building type seen on South Temple (primarily on its east end and near State Street,} the Avenues, Central City and all throughout the City. This is an appropriate type for a large apartment building within a district, and it is likely similar in size, massing and form of something that might have been built on the site in 1927, when it was zoned for apartments or hotels with no maximum density. There are many types of apartment buildings which would be wholly inappropriate for this site, a glass high-rise or a flat-roofed CMU box, or the three-story, pitched roof walk-ups which seemed to have proliferated throughout the rest of the valley. The Capitol Hill Historic District also contains some grand structures, most notable the Woodruff-Ritter and McCune Mansions, which are a type more likely to be found in the South Temple District. While districts may have a certain image and predominant vernacular type, there is ample cross-over of types and styles from district to district and it cannot be held true that "preservation guidelines require that the project be appropriate to the surrounding historic structures, not some other historic district."
During the entire length of the application process, the Commission has consistently stressed upon the applicant the importance of quality construction in this project. South Temple projects, both old and new, represent a quality of construction, materials and detailing that we have insisted upon for approval of this project. Any reference to such shall not be construed as negative.
f) The Association further argues that the uniqueness of their district prohibits the massing of such a project. This project, being a fringe development will not affect the internal areas of the Marmalade District in any way that will disturb the uniqueness of the extant buildings.
g) The letter states that the design also does not comply with the "not yet official" Design Standards for Salt Lake City. As the design standards as cited have not been approved by the City Council (as it states in the Ordinance that they must) any information contained within cannot be considered by the Commission.
3) Finding that new construction, as allowed by the purpose statement for Historic District Overlay shall be evaluated by Section 21A.34.020.H, we find that the Staff's analysis of the specific criteria with which a project must substantially comply is thoughtful, accurate and correct. In addition, we find the project visually compatible with the surrounding structures (by reason of the same discussion and findings presented under the specific criteria, as the criteria seek to ensure visual compatibility) and find it is in the best interests of the City. We agree with the discussion and findings of fact, as presented.
Our approval also includes the following changes to the project 1) reduction in height on the north elevation, as indicated by the applicant; 2) the Chinese Elm on the northwest corner to remain for at least one year; and 3) moving the higher elevation element on Almond Street to the north to preserve the view corridors. It was seconded by Mr. Young.
Ms. Williams objected to the motion, as well as Ms. Hatch. Ms. Williams said that the presentation of the motion, implied that the decision was made prior to this meeting and she said that she thought that would violate that the process of hearing both sides of the issues. Ms. Williams indicated that she recognized that the new information which was presented at this meeting, was incorporated it into the motion. She stated that the motion could be entered into the record as Ms. Deal's response to some of the information that was presented in the Staff report, and not positioned to the project.
Ms. Deal said that she put the information into the frame of a motion. She said that in cases as complicated as the Watts case has been, it is normal standard of procedure around the country to write the motion ahead of time. She continued by saying that if she would have heard something that would have changed her mind, she would not have presented the motion. She said that she believed there was nothing wrong with taking many pages of analysis and condensing it into a form of a motion. Ms. Deal added that it did not mean that hers or anyone's mind was made up.
Ms. Hatch said that she thought the motion was unnecessarily "patronizing" to the neighborhood. She said that she believed that the neighbors understood the analysis. Ms. Hatch noted that the reference to the RMF-45 zone had already been determined that the issue was not in the purview of this Commission. She pointed out that a motion should be made to either approve it or deny it. Ms. Hatch indicated that the neighborhood came to a consensus and an agreement had been signed, so they can come to their own conclusions. Ms. Deal said that there was no intention to patronize the neighbors.
Mr. Cerruti, referencing the agreement that had been signed by the neighborhood and the Watts Corporation, inquired if those issues had been incorporated into the motion. Ms. Deal said she included everything that pertained to the .application which was before the Historic Landmark Commission, and did not include the traffic situations. The discussion continued.
Mr. Cartwright said that he, too, had a problem with the motion for reasons that had already been stated, however he said that he would like to have the project approved.
Ms. Hatch stated that she was concerned about the quality control and inquired how the City would handle that issue. Mr. Wright said that it was difficult for the Planning Staff to go beyond what was the City inspector's job, however he said that there was coordination with the Building Services Division. Mr. Wright added that efforts to ensure quality control could be improved during the construction phase, and let it be known that a "thousand eyes" would be watching this project.
Mr. Morgan made the suggestion to have the working drawings of the project reviewed by a third party. He said that it was not unusual for Cities to send constructional information to a third party to verify that the quality was there. Mr. Wright said that perhaps another approach would be to have the drawings reviewed at the Architectural Subcommittee meeting to make certain all corrections and changes had been made.
The quality control discussion continued, as well as other related matters. Ms. Deal withdrew the motion.
Ms. Williams moved to approve Case No. 017-96, based on the findings of fact included in the Staff report. It was seconded by Mr. Cartwright
Mr. Young suggested that the revisions of the plans that were presented at this meeting be included in the motion. Ms. Williams said that she thought the agreement between the neighbors and the Watts Corporation was good and if the Commission members thought those revisions would change the findings of fact and affect it in such a way that the findings would be adverse. She added that she did not think the agreement negated the findings. Ms. Deal thought the revisions should be spelled out in the motion. Mr. Cerruti also said that the issues in that agreement should be included in the motion. He pointed out that he had no reason to believe that both parties, who signed that agreement, would not act in good faith, but he believed those issues pertaining to this Commission should be part of the record of the rendered decision.
After a short discussion regarding the quality control and other issues, Ms. Williams amended the motion.
Ms. Williams moved to approve Case No. 017-96, based on the findings of fact included in the Staff report and the additional incorporation of the agreement that was recently signed between the neighborhood and the applicant. Further, final approval of any design changes that come about as the result of that agreement would be approved by Staff. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Ms. Hatch, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "aye". Mr. Miya, the Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
Case No. 003-97, at 439 No. Main Street. by Todd Holloway of DT Partnership, requesting final approval of a new two-family structure.
This case was postponed.
NEW CASE
Case No. 008-97, at 337 South 1100 East, by Doug and Esther Hunter. represented by Allen Roberts of Cooper-Roberts Architects requesting approval of rehabilitation plans for a single family house.
This case was postponed.
OTHER BUSINESS
The election of officers for 1997-1998.
A short discussion took place how the election should be held. The Commission decided, as a whole, that there would be an open vote on the new Chair and Vice Chair.
Mr. Cartwright moved to nominate Dina Williams, as Chair. It was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, the Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
Mr. Young moved to nominate Susan Deal, as Vice Chair. It was seconded by Mr. Cerruti. Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Cerruti, Ms. Deal, Mr. McFarland, Mr. Morgan, Ms. Williams, and Mr. Young unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Miya, the Acting Chair, did not vote. Mr. Cooper, Mr. Damery, Ms. Hatch, Ms. Jeppsen, Ms. Miller, and Ms. Swinton were not present. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00P.M.