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 Sarah Miller, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Cheri Coffey, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Scott Christensen, Wayne Gordon, William Littig, Sarah Miller, Oktai Parvaz, Alex Protasevich, Amy Rowland, and Soren Simonsen. Magda Jakovcev-Ulrich, Vicki Mickelsen, Robert Payne, Mark Wilson, and Robert Young were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director, Cheri Coffey, Planning Programs Supervisor, Elizabeth Giraud, and Nelson Knight, Preservation Planners.
Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.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. Simonsen moved to approve the minutes from the June 6, 2001 meeting, as amended. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Briefing by Stephen Goldsmith, Planning Director, on the status of plans for a new federal courthouse adjacent to or in the Exchange Place Historic District.
Mr. Goldsmith said that he attended the meeting to inform the Historic Landmark Commission about the ongoing negotiations between Salt Lake City, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Utah Heritage Foundation, the Government Services Administration (GSA), Senator Hatch, Senator Bennett, and the Federal Courts in Salt Lake City regarding the location of a new courthouse facilities. He described the ongoing negotiations in the following manner:
The new courthouse facility is designed to provide services to the federal courts and the bankruptcy courts. Currently the courts are in the Moss Courthouse on 400 South and Main Streets. The courthouse does not meet the courts' current needs. The facilities need to have a 30-year expansion over the next two or three decades. These negotiations have been going on for several years. This has been a difficult and highly contentious process. With the change in administration and a change of some city-building points of view, a process has been set in motion that will lead to a good solution and one that will make sure the historic preservation will be utmost in GSA's mind when the people finally put a shovel into the earth.
About one year ago, when Mr. Goldsmith accepted the position of planning director, the site being discussed was on the west side of Main Street between 400 and 500 South Streets and condemnation proceedings had begun. This has now ceased and there is no current action, to the best of his knowledge, to move this court's complex forward on that site. That is a good indicator of the working relationship that has been developed with the courts and GSA. Maintaining the street wall from 600 South to North Temple on Main Street has been a long-term interest in Salt Lake City.
Two sites are being discussed at this time: West of the Moss Courthouse and on State Street between 300 and 400 South Streets, which is currently a parking lot.
Conditions of the site west of the Moss Courthouse: Both the Odd Fellows Building and the Shubrick Building would have to be preserved and maintained. The federal judges agree that the Odd Fellows Building would be preserved, however it would be moved across the street. They want the Shubrick Building demolished.
It is known that the architect can design a facility on the site, move and maintain the Odd Fellows Building, and keep the Shubrick Building intact. The Odd Fellows Building would be restored, seismic retrofitted, and left in better shape, which GSA agreed to do.
Nelson Knight was complimented for the document he assembled and presented to the Senators that showed the value of the Shubrick Building. The federal judges do not believe that a new building could be constructed next to an historic building and make aesthetic sense out of it. They also believe that since the Shubrick Building is not seismically retrofitted, it would be gone in the first earthquake anyway, so why sacrifice the finer courts complex when the Shubrick Building, in their minds, that is destined for seismic death. The City has a different point of view, as well as SHPO and the Utah Heritage Foundation.
There was some discussion regarding how the new courthouse would be accessed if it is constructed on the west side of the Moss Courthouse.
Conditions of the site on State Street between 300 and 400 South: This would be a good site for a number of reasons. It would create a "terrific" terminus on Exchange Place. With the Boston Building to the east, there would be great circulation up and down the street. It would anchor the corner, diagonally across from the Matheson Courts Building. The building adjacent to the parking lot has been identified for years as the "Civic Center" area of town.
Resolution: The judges want better adjacency to the Moss Courthouse. They want to be able to have the district courts and the bankruptcy courts share the resources. The district court judges are also concerned about giving up any historic courtrooms in the building because they have a real love for those courtrooms. They find them beautiful and to be filled with all kinds of history. Famous trials have gone on in there. They don't want to relinquish those to the bankruptcy courts, which they would have to do.
The City and the preservation agencies are advocating very strongly to the national delegation that the sites would meet the needs of all concerned. The physical security needs of the judges are important concerns to them. The architect said that he could meet all the problematic needs for the judges for a new courts building on the sites and meet the preservation and economic needs of the City, but the judges do not see it that way. The bankruptcy courts would be in one building and the district courts in another building. The adjacency would mean shared parking, shared storage, and shared security. There are many federal facilities where they are separated.
The City is "arm-in-arm" with SHPO and the Utah Heritage Foundation. The changes in the height limitations and other modifications could be resolved.
Resolution is in the near future with further negotiations.
Mr. Goldsmith said that there is also another working group that met last week with a Downtown Alliance subcommittee, chaired by former Chief Justice Michael Zimmerman, to help assess the best siting and the best time table to accomplish this. He added that their opinions would just be their own, however, they are trying to work with the City to find the best solution to the problem.
The discussion turned to the GSA contract with the architect and other related issues. Mr. Goldsmith said that the City did not have a preference for either site. He concluded by reiterating the need to maintain the subject historic structures.
Presentation by Cory Jensen, Utah State Historic Preservation Office, to solicit comments on the listing of two properties on the National Register of Historic Places: Westminster College President's House at 1733 South 1300 East, and the Centennial Home at 307 No. Virginia Street.
Mr. Cory Jensen introduced himself as the Architectural Historian for the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). He gave a slide presentation on the two properties. Copies of the two nomination documents and the staff memorandums were attached to the minutes of this meeting. The following information describes the significance of the two properties:
Westminster College President's House- The Westminster College President's House was constructed in 1915. It is a one and one-half story, Arts and Crafts bungalow constructed of wood shingles and clinker brick. Ralph C. Holsclaw constructed the house and probably executed the design, as well. This is significant because of the association of the development of Westminster College and was the actual first president's house for the college. The house has had some modifications through the years but is in excellent condition. There is close to 4,000 square feet in the interior. The house retains its historic feeling. The first owner was Reverend Herbert W. Reherd and his wife, Louisa M. They built the home as their residence. The school purchased the property in 1920 for its official use as a college home of the president. After the college purchased the home, a friend of Reverend Reherd's named, Arthur Cushman of New York, reimbursed the college for all its expenses and for a time the building was known as "Cushman Cottage". For a while it was the only house along 1300 East between 1700 and 1900 South. The school purchased all the ground around it in 1920. The property was sold in 1965 and has been a private residence ever since. The current property owner is John G. Moore.
The Centennial Home- The Centennial Home, was billed as the "Home of Tomorrow" when it was constructed in 1947. William E. Nelson was the architect and Elbert G. Adamson and A. P. Neilson were the builders. The home contains almost all of the original materials inside. The exterior of the house is in the Post World War II Modern style. It has one story and a finished walk out basement. It sits on a sloped lot. The floor joists of the home, unconventional for the time and even by today's standards, were made with concrete reinforced by steel running the entire length of the joist. The stone accents of the house are of sandstone cut in random sizes that was mined in Utah at a quarry near Park City. The same stonework was incorporated in the interior of the house around the fireplace in the living room. The interior recessed lighting and the built-in stereo/intercom system were new innovations at the time. The current owner has documents of the home's authenticity. The Centennial Home was authorized by the Utah Centennial Commission to participate in the Centennial Celebration in 1947. The Commission
was to set up and organize a Centennial Celebration to show Utah to the world while commemorating the 100-year anniversary of the arrival of Brigham Young (President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and the pioneers to the Salt Lake Valley July 24, 1847. The Utah Home Builders Association was authorized to participate in the festivities by building a model home to showcase all that was new and modern in design, color, equipment, and convenience. The project was to symbolize the spirit of progress and development that had occurred in the previous 100 years. The home is currently owned by Mark Corbin.
Mr. Parvaz inquired about the request for the homes be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Jensen said the current owner of the President's Residence, Mr. Moore, hired a consultant to write the nomination. He also said that SHPO originated the nomination for the Centennial Home and contacted the owner who expressed an interest in having his building listed, as well.
Mr. Knight stated that SHPO was requesting a positive recommendation by the Historic Landmark Commission that can be forwarded to the Board of State History.
• Motion:
Mr. Simonsen moved that the Historic Landmark Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office that the Westminster College President's Home at 1733 South 1300 East, and the Centennial Home at 307 No. Virginia Street be included on the National Register
of Historic Places. Mr. Rowland seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Case No. 012-01, a request by William Connelly of Groupwest Properties to construct four new condominium units and renovate an existing structure at 1027 E. South Temple, which is located in the South Temple Historic District.
Ms. Giraud 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 said that William Connelly of Groupwest Properties was requesting approval to construct four condominium units and renovate an existing home on the property as a fifth unit. Ms. Giraud noted that the existing house is a contributing structure in the South Temple Historic District and was constructed in 1909. Ms. Giraud continued by saying that the house is a Craftsman bungalow in style and is unusual because of the use of clinker bricks. She added that some alterations, most notably the details of the front porch, have occurred but overall it has maintained a high degree of integrity.
Ms. Giraud stated that the previous applicant, who was represented by architect Max Smith, submitted a similar petition that the Historic Landmark Commission heard and approved on February 2, 2000. She said that as part of the approval, the Historic Landmark Commission allowed the removal of a frame, two-story appendage at the rear of the clinker brick structure. Ms. Giraud stated that in February of 2001, another applicant applied for an extension of the approval, which was granted by the Commission.
Ms. Giraud said that while the design of the new buildings and site plan of Mr. Connelly's application are similar to what the Historic Landmark Commission previously approved, one significant element was changed; instead of a drive approach on the east side of the lot with underground parking accessed at the rear of the property, the drive approach is now proposed at the front of the property on South Temple.
Ms. Giraud reported that the property is zoned RIVIF-35, Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District, the purpose of which is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types. She announced that the applicant must pursue a planned development process through the Planning Commission because he needs approval to modify the setbacks and because he is proposing to have more than one building on a parcel. She added that according to Barry Walsh of the Transportation Division, the current driveway configuration does not meet the building code for the required slope, but the length is sufficient to remedy this deficiency.
Ms. Giraud described the new construction as follows: 1) the four new units would be constructed in an "L" formation, with frontage of one unit on South Temple; 2) brick and EIFS are the proposed materials; 3) the new units would be on a platform that acts as a roof for the underground parking; 4) two stepped retaining walls will flank the entrance to the garage; and 5) skylights would be used rather than dormers, because of the height limitation requirement.
Ms. Giraud referred to Section 21A.34.020(G)(1 and 2) Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a landmark site or contributing structure, which were included in the staff report. Staff determined only the standards, outlined below, would apply to this proposal.
G. 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.
(1) A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be used for a purpose that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the buildings and its site and environment.
Staff's discussion: The building was originally used as a single-family residence, but has served as a doctors' office since 1957. The applicant intends to convert it back to a single-family structure.
Staff's findings of fact: The applicant meets this standard.
(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 discussion: The rear, two-story addition appears to have been constructed many years prior to 1950, and staff considers this to be part of the architectural history of the house. However, it is at the rear, and probably served the same purpose that many frame additions served that are attached to masonry houses throughout the city- that of a sleeping porch or overflow area. Staff believes that it has also been altered by the application of stucco on the first story. The Historic Landmark Commission has allowed many such additions to be demolished if the replacement construction was in accordance with the design guidelines and the ordinance.
Staffs findings of fact: Staff does not find the removal of the sleeping porch to be an ideal solution, but there is extensive precedent for allowing the demolition of such features in order to allow owners to accommodate older homes to changing household needs. In this case, the architect has devised a plan that preserves the historic house and returns an economic value to the applicant. Staff finds that losing the sleeping porch is worth the preservation of the house.
Ms. Giraud also referred to Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4) Standards for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction or alteration of a noncontributing structure. The Historic Landmark Commission shall 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.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and width.
b. Proportion of principal facades. c. Roof shape.
d. Scale of a structure.
Staffs discussion: The street frontages on the north side of South Temple, between "J" and "Q" streets, exhibit several examples of Craftsman-style homes with a four square-shape, and are characterized by similar heights (two or two-and-one-half stories), hipped roofs, wide eaves, and vary from approximately 35' to 45' wide. The proportion of the principal facades of these homes is typically wider that it is high, with the first story taller than the second. Overall, the nearby homes (including the house proposed for renovation) have a boxy, "squatty" appearance.
Mr. Connelly is proposing a design that incorporates these features. A two-story "block" that is approximately 35' wide would front onto South Temple, with a slightly higher roofline. The building behind this South Temple frontage would be similar in height and roof shape. In terms of proportion and scale, it will be longer and thus larger than other homes in this vicinity, but it will not dominate the streetscape.
Staff's findings of fact: The applicant meets this standard. The height and width of proposed structure that has the most effect on South Temple is consistent with the adjacent residences in terms of height, width, the proportion of the principal facades, and the roof shape. The overall scale differs from the surrounding structures, but the architect has taken care to tuck most of the new building behind the street frontage so that it is less disruptive and visible to the South Temple streetscape.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of openings.
b. Rhythm of solids to voids in facades.
c. Rhythm of entrance porch and other projections. d. Relationship of materials.
Staffs discussion: The fenestration pattern of the surrounding structures consists of single or double-hung windows, single and multi-planned lights, and casements. The apartment building at No. 1007 has steel sash windows, but this building is an anomaly on this block frontage. Overall, the Craftsman-style homes that are in close proximity to this lot have banks of double-hung windows in the upper stories, and the traditional fixed paned and transom or casements on the first story. The openings do not constitute large expanses in the walls. In keeping with the four-square type and the Craftsman style, the surrounding homes have prominent front porches that are significant, character-defining features. Most of the homes surrounding this property are brick; the house next door to the west (No. 1021) is clad with cementious stucco.
The windows on the proposed new construction are double-hung, consisting of multi-pane lights in the upper sash and single panes in the lower sash. This pattern is compatible with the fenestration pattern of the homes near the subject property. Details concerning the materials and the placement of the grid have not been provided. The brick and stucco are materials found on nearby houses. The porches that are proposed are not as ample as those found on true Craftsman or box-style homes, but they are features that help to tie the new construction to the historic character of South Temple.
Staff notes discrepancies on the plans related to this section of the standards. Upper-story porches are indicated on the South Temple elevation when viewing the east and west elevations, but are not included on the south elevation. Similarly, chimneys are indicated on the South Temple elevation when viewing the floor plan and east and west elevations, but are not included on the south elevation.
Staff's findings of fact: The proportion of the openings, the rhythm of solids to voids in the facades, the rhythm of projections, and the relationship of the materials are similar to those of the surrounding structures, with the exception of the chimneys. Staff finds all the elements listed above, except the chimneys, to be a reasonable approach to new construction in an historic district, as they are not dissonant with the surrounding historic architecture and evoke the elements found in early-twentieth residential structures.
3. Relationship to street.
a. Walls of continuity.
b. Rhythm of spacing and structures on streets. c. Directional expression of principal elevation. d. Streetscape- Pedestrian improvements.
Staff's discussion: The existing house (No. 1027) is currently on a comparatively large parcel with a significant amount of asphalt parking to the east and the north. The buildings on this block frontage are close together and the existing parking lot serves as a void in the streetscape. No. 1027 is also unusual in that its front yard setback is 45 feet as opposed to the consistent 25 feet seen on this block frontage and in general on South Temple. The new construction would fill in this gap, but access to the underground parking from South Temple presents several elements that disrupt the streetscape; the garage door, the retaining walls alongside the driveway, the width of the driveway itself (which must be at least 18 feet, according to code), and the raised characteristic of the new units.
Pedestrian amenities are proposed, such as landscaping between the new units and the historic house, trees planted alongside the retaining walls, and the retention of the existing sandstone sidewalk (to be repaired during the South Temple reconstruction project, which will begin in May of 2002).
Staff's findings of fact: Staff finds that the applicant meets the provisions of the ordinance in terms of pedestrian improvements, directional expression of the principal elevation and the rhythm of structures on the street. However, staff finds that the use of a garage door, the encroachment of the retaining walls in the front yard of the clinker brick house, and the resulting platform created by the parking garage would potentially interrupt the sloping front yards characteristic of residential development on South Temple. That is something that would need to be addressed by the architects on this Commission. For this reason staff finds that in terms of "walls of continuity", the application does not meet this standard.
4. Subdivision of Lots.
Staff's discussion and findings of fact: Subdivision of lots is not necessary in this project. The applicant will be required to pursue the City's condominium process.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff's recommendation: "Staff finds many merits to this proposal: the preservation of an existing structure; the filling in of an unattractive gap in the South Temple streetscape; and new construction that is appropriate for the historic character of this district. Staff is concerned about the garage opening on South Temple. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the proposal, upon the condition that more, complete, plans be submitted for review by the Architectural Subcommittee, and if the Commission feels it is necessary, a final review by the full Commission.
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff. Upon hearing no questions, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Jerry Robinson was present representing tl1e applicant, William Connelly. He introduced Mr. Dave Kallinger, who he said was more familiar with the project. Mr. Robinson stated that the existing structure was a nice building at one time and they would return the house back to its original use. He used a display board to further describe the project. Mr. Robinson talked about some of the architecture elements that appear on the exterior of the existing structure. He mentioned that the applicant would like to eliminate the chimney mass and convert the fireplace to gas. Mr. Robinson pointed out the materials for the proposed new building, w 1ich would be brick on the major facades and stucco above the beltline.
Mr. Robinson stated that the cupolas would be eliminated due to the height limitation, so the stairwells would have skylights above them.
Mr. Robinson pointed out the direction of the original access to the property, which was only eight feet wide. He explained with the configuration of the parking garage, that amount of space would not be wide enough to be safely usable. Mr. Robinson noted that the location of the driveway off South Temple would follow the slope of the street. He explained that the doors to the parking garage would be recessed four to six feet, which would create a shadow effect. Also, he said that the doors would be painted a dark color with matte finish. Mr. Robinson pointed out hoe the stepped planter with a railing would look in relationship to the four-foot retaining wall on the South Temple elevation. He believed that would minimize the impact of the garage door. Mr. Robinson stated that there would be no vehicles parked on site because all the parking would be underground. He added that there would be parking for the tenants, as well as guest parking.
Mr. Robinson said that the applicant plans to ask for a variance for the rear yard setback. He said that the proposed new building would set back from the street so the rhythm of the streetscape would be maintained. Mr. Robinson noted that the rear yard setback would be cut from 25 feet, which meets code, to 15 feet. There was some discussion regarding the setback proposal.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Protasevich led the discussion by talking further about the change in the configuration and the rear yard setback. Mr. Kallinger explained that in order to have enough underground parking, the new building would have to be set back ten feet. Mr. Protasevich expressed his concern that the real issue regarding the proposed setback had not been exposed. A short discussion followed. Mr. Simonsen said that the existing structure sat back ten feet further than most of the historic structures on South Temple. Ms. Coffey explained that those issues would be resolved by the Planning Commission during the planned development process. She said that the Historic Landmark Commission was responsible for the design and the historic nature of the project. Mr. Protasevich also asked if the concrete walls of the driveway could be faced with some other material to minimize the mass. Mr. Robinson said that a portion of the walls could be faced with brick, but it was still undecided. He added that the garage door would be in a shadow and would not be so noticeable.
• Mr. Littig expressed his concern that the reduced setback would impact the neighbors behind the project. He also talked about "softening" the gable end on the rear of the planned structure. Mr. Robinson said that the gable would enclose the intended finished attic loft that would maximize the living space. He said that there are garages behind where the structure would be constructed because the house is on the eastern edge. Mr. Robinson said that there was a four-foot retaining wall on the north side separating the adjacent property. Mr. Littig said that he appreciated the plantings that would be on those walls. Mr. Robinson said that they would propose vines that would cling to the walls. Mr. Littig inquired why there had to be six feet of concrete on each side of the proposed garage door. Both, Mr. Kallinger and Mr. Robinson, said that a "stepped" effect would be created but reducing that amount of space could be deliberated. Mr. Littig stated that it was not typical on South Temple to have the driveway access on the front elevation, so there needed to be some attempt to "shrink" the appearance and minimize the impact of that driveway. Mr. Kallinger said that he believed large quantities of greenery would help minimize the effect. Ms. Miller also expressed her interest in minimizing the appearance of the driveway.
Ms. Rowland asked how guests would access the parking garage. Mr. Kallinger said how the security keypad system had not been decided. He talked further about some possible locations for the keypad.
• Mr. Simonsen inquired if the applicant had considered a single wide driveway which would allow one vehicle to access or exit at a time. Mr. Kallinger said that there needed to be a two-way access. There was some further discussion regarding this suggestion. Mr. Simonsen said that it would be rare that two vehicles would be coming and going at the same time. Mr. Simonsen also said that the keypad should be in a location where the vehicle would not be in the line of traffic while the driver was gaining access to the garage.
• Mr. Parvaz said he believed two single garage doors, one for ingress and one for egress, would be more practical than one double wide garage door. He said that with a 40-stall parking garage, that door would be opened and closed many times a day. Mr. Robinson thol.1ght that would be a consideration. Mr. Parvaz stated that the least number of times a garage door opens and closes, would be better for the mechanics of the system, and that would solve the problem about minimizing the concrete walls. Mr. Robinson said that the applicant was certainly open to looking at alternatives.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, 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
Mr. Simonsen stated that he could understand the challenges of the narrow driveway that was originally proposed. He also said that he did not have any "feelings" about the setback issue.
Mr. Littig believed that the scale of the project was too "grand" with too much frontage on South Temple. He added that there was not another house on South Temple with a driveway accessing from the front elevation.
Ms. Giraud inquired if it would be less intrusive to not have the planters on the sides of the driveway. Ms. Miller said that she thought it would be less intrusive if it were narrower. She also said that a consistent landscaping treatment across the entire front of the property might make the proposed driveway access and garage door less noticeable.
Mr. Protasevich said that if it would be workable, he also would rather see two single doors, rather than an 18-foot double garage door. He suggested creating some kind of island separating the driveway for security. Mr. Parvaz pointed out that many big projects have two access doors, rather than one.
Mr. Christensen said that it would be very important to monitor the building materials, especially on the garage door and the surrounding surfaces. He agreed that plants would certainly minimize the concrete, but they would shed their leaves five months out of the year, unless evergreens were used. Mr. Christensen said, "We could have five ugly months out of the year. The structure has to be as minimally offensive as possible."
There was some further discussion regarding the setbacks and the height issues.
Motion:
Mr. Littig moved that Case No. 012-01 be conceptually approved, based on Staff's findings of fact and staff's recommendation, with the condition that the proposal would be referred to the Architectural Subcommittee to review the following: 1) alternatives for the driveway entrance of the underground parking garage; 2) corrected site plans and one that shows the required setbacks; 3) renderings of the South Temple elevation that includes the whole building; and 4) return to the full Commission with the recommendations from the Architectural Subcommittee for final approval. Mr. Simonsen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Protasevich, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
• (Mr. Simonsen excused himself at 5:20P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.}
Case No. 013-01, a request by the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Facilities Division, represented by Jan Striefel of Landmark Design, Inc., requesting to construct a new universally accessible playground in the northwest quadrant of Liberty Park, which is a Salt Lake City Landmark Site.
Mr. Knight 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. He said that this request included a new playground proposed for Liberty Park by the Salt Lake City Parks Division. Liberty Park is located between 500 and 700 East, and 900 and 1300 South Streets. The entire park is listed as a Landmark Site on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, and also on the National Register of Historic Places. He said that the playground would be located on the site of the existing playground in the northwest quadrant of the park.
Mr. Knight stated that the park has been the focus of several major upgrades and the site of numerous smaller construction projects over the course of the last century. He noted that in 1997, planning for another major upgrade began and Landmark Design, Inc. and the City Parks Division completed a major seeping plan for the park in 1998. Mr. Knight said that the seeping plan called for a complete upgrade of the park which was to be accomplished in phases. He reported that the first of which was reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmark Commission on February 2, 2000, which included new lighting, restrooms, a jogging track, a new basketball court, and other upgrades to the park's infrastructure. At that time, he said the Commission also approved the removal of the northwest playground and the installation of a new, stock playground structure. Mr. Knight noted that one of the conditions of approval was that the playground be a neutral color.
Mr. Knight stated that members of the Rotary Club, a fraternal service organization, recently approached the City with a proposal to donate funds for construction of a larger, more elaborate playground than what was originally planned. He explained that a key element of the design is that the playground will be universally accessible to all children. Mr. Knight added that the playground would also celebrate the 2002 Paralympic Games, which will be held in Salt Lake City shortly after the completion of the Olympics in February of 2002. He indicated that a design team headed by Landmark Design, Inc. was selected to design the playground. Mr. Knight said that the playground is to be dedicated during the Paralympic Games, which necessitates an accelerated time schedule.
Mr. Knight offered the following recommendation by staff: "Staff recommends that the Commission give input to the design team on a playground design that would be appropriate for a historic park setting. In other park projects, the Commission has commented on items such as color, materials, and the retention of mature landscaping. The design team can then use the comments to formulate their final design."
Mr. Parvaz called for questions for the staff. Since there were no questions of staff, Mr. Parvaz invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Jan Striefel of Landmark Design, Inc., was present, representing the applicant. She introduced Mr. Mark Vlasic, Principal Planner with Landmark Design, Inc. and Mr. Keith Christensen, consultant from the Center of Persons with Physical Disabilities at Utah State University, as well as a landscape architect. She indicated that the playground would provide opportunities to play and interact with other children who are sight impaired, hearing impaired, and persons with other physical disabilities. Ms. Striefel also mentioned that there would be places where parents of these children could interact, as well. She said, "it is really an exciting project and we are absolutely just thrilled to be involved in it."
Mr. Striefel said that she appreciated the fact that Mr. Knight went over the tightness of the schedule because we literally have a deadline every single Friday for submissions and review for the City in order to get this out to bid and under construction in August.
Ms. Striefel said that a seeping meeting was held with members of the Playground Planning Group, a steering committee who represent Salt Lake City staff and administration, principals, teachers, and administrators from the Salt Lake City School District, parents of children with disabilities, therapists, accessibility specialists, the design consultants, and others where they had an opportunity to review the preliminary design and "they are very excited about it".
Ms. Striefel said that on June 9, 2001, a "Design Fest" was held at the site of the existing playground and was attended by 200 to 300 people, including persons with disabilities, parents, able-bodied children, and residents of the Liberty Park neighborhood. She said that an awareness center provided everyone with an opportunity to try out a wheelchair, try on a prosthetic device, and learn about the often subtle design considerations that makes the difference between an accessible place and a place with barriers to play. Ms. Striefel pointed out that they wanted to gather information about what the children wanted to have in the play park, so they drew pictures, and models were constructed out of paper boxes and tubes and pieces of fabrics. She said that the Paralympics entertained all who were there. Ms. Striefel stated that those involved at Landmark Design are currently in the process of analyzing the many drawings, sketches, models, and photographs assembled during the Design Fest, and developing an overall layout of the play park and it's many elements. She said that the project, as presented, was over budget sot the project would actually be scaled down.
Mr. Vlasic used a briefing board to further describe the project. He stated that circles would be used in the design symbolizing the Olympics rings and Paralympics logo. He stated that the new children's play area would incorporate the ideals of the Paralympics, and would be a place where everyone, regardless of ability, would come together and play without barriers. Mr. Vlasic pointed out that there would be many unique features and elements, not found in any other playground in the City, or the intermountain area. He mentioned that there would be areas that separate older children from younger children. He talked about some of the equipment that would be installed. Mr. Vlasic stated that the children expressed a preference for more swings, places to get water, and more trees for shade.
Mr. Vlasic described some of the proposed water features where one could float a piece of bark or other small objects, water mist for the play area, and white water rafting. He stated that there would be a medals plaza in the shape of the Paralympics logo. Mr. Vlasic said that a tree house, which would be accessed by ramps, is proposed to be constructed, as well as mazes, climbing apparatuses, special slides, see-saws, a mogul course, canyon area featuring alternative ways to get through, boulders, and a natural area where the grass will be allowed to grow.
Ms. Striefel said that because of the tight time schedule, the applicant would appreciate an approval at this meeting so the process would keep moving along.
Mr. Parvaz asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Littig led the discussion by saying that there seems to be too much going into the play park. Ms. Striefel said that they have thought of that, but they are trying to address a lot of special needs and what some children could enjoy, some others might not be able to. Mr. Littig said that skateboarding seems to be a real problem in the park and expressed his concern about the ramps that would have to be constructed for the play equipment. Ms. Striefel said that she was aware of the problem and they were looking at some surface materials that would discourage that activity. Mr. Littig also suggested that the water areas be made interesting during the time of the year when the water would be turned off, such as a collection of rocks.
Mr. Parvaz said that this proposed play park would complement the other playground on the east side of the park. Ms. Striefel said that it would be very different. She added that it would offer more unique opportunities.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Mr. Parvaz opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
• Mr. Rick Graham, Director of the City's Public Services Division, stated that one of his responsibilities is the development and maintenance of the City's park system. He said that he hoped the Commission would provide some latitude with colors and the use of colors with the playground. He pointed out that colors are lively and they would bring excitement and interest to the facility; play grounds are supposed to be lively and generate a lot of excitement. Mr. Graham stated
that they would be careful with the use of colors. He expressed his enthusiasm for this unique project.
Upon hearing no further 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. Christensen said that it sounded like, from the presentation, that most of the mature landscaping and trees would be retained.
Mr. Knight said that he was a member of the steering committee and could raise any issues the Commission may have and try to solve them with that committee.
Ms. Coffey asked if the meeting could be reopened to ask the applicant some further questions. The Commission was in agreement, so Mr. Parvaz reopened the meeting. Ms. Coffey inquired if this project would be going to the regular engineering review to make sure that the Commission's interests are secure. Del Cooke from the City Engineer's Division was in attendance and said that every facet and design would be reviewed to make sure that the City's interests are protected. He said that the play park would be self-contained and have easy access from the parking lot.
Mr. Parvaz reclosed this portion of the meeting and the Historic Landmark Commission continued with their executive session.
There was some discussion about the wording of the motion.
Motion:
Ms. Rowland moved to approve Case No. 013-01, based on the presentation at this meeting. Further, the Historic Landmark Commission would allow the use of more colors for the play park, rather than the more natural colors that was previously recommended by the Commission. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Littig, Ms. Miller, Mr. Protasevich, and Ms. Rowland unanimously voted "Aye". Ms. Jakovcev-Ulrich, Ms. Mickelsen, Mr. Payne, Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Young were not present. Mr. Parvaz, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
(Ms. Rowland excused herself at 5:55P.M. for the remainder of the meeting; therefore, the Commission was left without a quorum.)
Case No. 014-01, a petition by the Salt Lake City Planning Division, to amend Section 21A.34.020.34.020.24.010(S), Non-Residential Uses of Landmark Sites in Residential Districts, to allow house museums as a conditional use in a property listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources.
Ms. Coffey announced that since the Commission lost its quorum, no official action could be taken at this meeting. She also stated that a change in the ordinance did not require the approval of the Historic Landmark Commission. Ms. Coffey asked the remaining Commissioners to make comments or suggestions and she would E-mail the other Commissioners, not in attendance, asking for their input into the ordinance change. She said that she would include any comments in the staff report to be forwarded to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Giraud 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 stated the following:
The Planning Commission took action on April 6, 2000 to initiate a petition to analyze conditional uses in structures listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources. Specifically, the Planning Commission requested that the Planning Division consider the conditional use regulations as they would be applied to buildings that are too small or too fragile to satisfy the conditional use options outlined in Section 21A.34.020.24.010(S) Non-residential uses of Landmark Sites in Residential Districts. This proposed change was in response to Planning Division staff's concern that historically significant structures exist that could be threatened with demolition or relocation but whose small size and structural fragility cannot accommodate the conditional use options currently defined in the ordinance. Such a change would have added "small and fragile" as a reason to change the use from residential to non-residential for bed and breakfasts, offices, and reception centers in Landmark Sites. Rather than adding another reason to the list of reasons necessary for such a change, the Planning Division is considering adding "house museum" to the non-residential use option.
The Planning Division is considering changing this section of the ordinance in response to concerns expressed by Maren Jeppsen, the owner of the Wilford Woodruff Farmhouse at 1604 South 500 East. The farmhouse has a very high level of historical and architectural significance, and Ms. Jeppsen is interested in stabilizing the house so that it can be used as an educational resource. Ms. Jeppsen believes the costs of stabilization are high enough to make the house infeasible for renovation as a single-family dwelling, and the existing non-residential uses of landmark sites would be detrimental to developing the educational potential of this important resource. For this reason, the Planning Division is now considering changing the existing provision for conditional uses in locally designated historic buildings to include museums. The house is zoned R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential.
The Wilfred Woodruff Farmhouse has exceptional significance for several reasons. First, it is associated with a particularly noteworthy figure in Utah and in L.D.S. Church history. The location of the farmhouse is illustrative of early settlement patterns in Salt Lake City, in which the area south of 900 South was used for farmland. A more detailed history of the farmhouse was included in the staff report.
Ms. Jeppsen has stated to staff that "This is the Place State Park" officials have expressed an interest in acquiring and moving the house. Staff believes this would have a very detrimental effect on the historic character of the house, as its location is a key component in the interpretation of both the history of the house and of Salt of Salt Lake City.
The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance currently allows three-non-residential uses that the owner of a historic property can pursue through the conditional use processes:
1) bed and breakfast establishments; 2) offices; and 3) reception centers. The intent of the ordinance is to allow uses that can operate on a small enough scale that the surrounding area will not lose its residential character, and to provide an incentive for the preservation of historically significant properties in a way that affords the best protection for the important historic resource. The zoning ordinance allows these commercial uses only if certain standards are met.
Staff is proposing the following amendments to the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance:
1. Section 21A.34.020.24.010(S)(2)(a) Non-residential Uses of Landmark Sites in Residential Districts: that house museum be added as a non-residential use allowed as a conditional use.
2. Section 21A.34.020.24.190 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Residential Districts: that house museum be added as a non-residential use allowed as a conditional use in the following zones: (The zones were listed in the staff report.)
3. Section 21A.34.020.62 Definitions: that the definition of house museum be described as
A dwelling unit which is converted from its original principal use as a dwelling unit to a permanent, staffed institution dedicated to educational or aesthetic purposes. Such museum should include a professional staff who commands an appropriate body of special knowledge necessary to convey the historical, aesthetic, or architectural attributes of the building and its collections to the general public. Such staff should also have the ability to reach museological decisions consonant with the experience of his or her peers and has access to and acquaintance with the literature of the field. Such museum should maintain either regular hours or be available for appointed visits such that access is reasonably convenient to the public, and that such museum operate during normal business hours and does not inherently exhibit noise, light, or traffic conditions clearly debilitating to neighboring residents; and.
4. Table 21.A.44.060(F) Schedule of Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements: that house museum be added to the existing provision for art gallery/museum, requiring 1 space per 1,000 square feet gross floor area.
Other considerations: Restaurants should not be allowed as part of a house museum facility unless the use is in a zoning district that allows restaurants as a permitted or a conditional use.
Ms. Giraud stated that the Historic Landmark Commission must evaluate the proposed text amendment according to Section 21A.34.020.50.50 Standards for General Amendments:
Standard A: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City.
Summary of staff's analysis: The Salt Lake City Futures Commission Final Report (March 1998) encourages preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods and to rehabilitate historic buildings for cultural uses wherever possible. The City Vision and Strategic Plan Final Report (1993) mentions historic preservation goals in two instances. Salt Lake City is recognized for its efforts to restore and adaptively reuse its historic resources. To develop programs to enhance and preserve the city's cultural history and character was reported in the Utah Heritage/Culture publication.
Staffs findings of fact: Amending the zoning text to add house museums as a nonresidential use in a residential district for Landmark Sites furthers the City's efforts to encourage preservation and adaptive reuse of important historic structures. Therefore, the amendment conforms to the standards outlined in the comprehensive plans of Salt Lake City. This standard is met.
Standard B: Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Summary of staff’s analysis: As with bed and breakfast establishments, offices, and reception centers, house museums can be an important reuse option for dwellings of exceptional historic significance. An applicant for a house museum will be required to conform to the standards in the conditional use section of the ordinance (Section 21A34.020.54) intended to prevent any potential nuisance that a non-residential use might have. Signage, parking, site layout, hours of operation, and other factors of a proposed house museum that could adversely affect the surrounding residential environment will be reviewed by the Historic Landmark and Planning commissions.
Staff's finding of fact: The conditional use section of the zoning ordinance has provisions with which to ensure that the proposed amendment will be harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
Standard C: The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties.
Summary of staff's analysis: As outlined under "Standard B", applicants for house museums in residential zones in Landmark Sites will be required to pursue conditional use approvals. The standards under conditional use approvals address traffic, circulation, capacity of the street to carry traffic, parking, utility service, appropriate buffering from adjacent land owners, operating and delivery house, and if the proposed use will not have a material net cumulative adverse impact on the neighborhood of City as a whole.
Staffs finding of fact: The text amendment is not site specific. Specific proposals will have to meet the standards of the conditional use chapter of the zoning ordinance. The proposed text amendment meets this standard.
Standard D: Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards.
Summary of staff’s analysis: Only properties listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources can apply for a conditional use under Section 21A.34.020.24.010(S). The H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone applies to the individually listed sites on this register. The proposed amendment will provide an additional option available for fostering the preservation of the City's most important historic, architectural, or cultural resources.
Staffs finding of fact: By allowing an additional non-residential use for Landmark Sites, the proposed text amendment will further the City's preservation goals. The proposed text amendment meets this standard.
Standard E: The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks, and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies and wastewater and refuse collection.
Staffs finding of fact: If the proposed text amendment is adopted, any applicant applying for a house museum on a Landmark Site in a residential zone will be required to address the adequacy of the public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property as part of the conditional use process. The proposed text amendment meets this standard.
Ms. Giraud offered the following staff recommendation: "Staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission provide a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council to include house museums as a non-residential use of Landmark Sites in Residential Districts, pursuant to Section 21A.34.020.24.01O(S) of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance."
Ms. Giraud said that there were very few structures in the city that would fall into this category.
Mr. Littig recommended that no changes be made to the exterior to allow for more parking. Ms. Giraud stated that the church across the street was owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Ms. Jeppsen was working with the L.D.S. Church to agree to a shared parking arrangement.
Mr. Protasevich inquired about the maintenance of the property. Ms. Giraud stated that the property would be given a non-profit status and the owners would provide the maintenance.
Mr. Parvaz stated that there would have to be some alterations to the house for wheelchair access. Mr. Knight said that there was a petition in 1988 to allow the state to work with the building officials to try to minimize that sort of thing so it would not have an impact on the historic character of the property. Mr. Knight suggested signage saying that help would be provided, if needed for any person with a disability. Ms. Giraud said that the building is fairly low to the ground and the original door is very wide.
Mr. Christensen inquired if a privately owned structure would need to meet the American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. (Mr. Littig excused himself at 6:10P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.) Since this was not a hearing but just a briefing where the Historic Landmark Commission would not take action, Mr. Parvaz only allowed Ms. Tamara Wharton, Chair of the Liberty Wells Community Council to address the Commission. Ms. Wharton said that the proposal was reviewed at the community council meeting and the members were very excited about the possibility of the Wilford Woodruff Farmhouse becoming a museum in their neighborhood.
There was a lengthy discussion why the zoning ordinance amendment is necessary to preserve certain historic buildings in residential districts, and other related matters. Members of the Commission expressed his/her opinions on the subject. The majority of the members of the Historic Landmark Commission believed that the zoning ordinance amendment would be beneficial to the city and could not see where there would be a possible abuse the way it would be written.
OTHER BUSINESS
Briefing by Melissa Anderson, Sugar House Community Planner in the Planning Division, on the Sugar House Master Plan update.
Ms. Giraud 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 stated that she wrote the chapter on historic preservation in the Sugar House Master Plan. Ms. Giraud stated the following:
“The main focus that I wanted to point out is that I wrote the National Register nomination of districts and historic surveys. I didn't push more local historic districts because they would have to be balanced with staff time. I mentioned the conservation districts, which have been a hot issue for a few years in our office and for preservation in general. A conservation district is proposed for the Sugar House Business District because there are a lot of altered historic structures there. It might be a way to combine design review with pro-preservation. A conservation district could encourage new design to be compatible with what was there."
Ms. Giraud stated that due to the tax benefits associated with the National Register, and because of the prestige that such listing confers, nominating properties or districts on the National Register of Historic Places is the most effective and benign way to instigate preservation efforts. She said that the financial incentives associated with the National Register consist of tax credits for the property owners. Ms. Giraud pointed out that properties listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places are held to a higher standards for significance than those included in historic districts. She noted that it is simply easier to make the case that a wide "swath" of buildings contributes to the understanding of local development than the importance or the significance of a single structure, such as an ordinary bungalow or Victorian house.
Ms. Giraud said that preparation of a nomination for a district is a time-consuming and specialized task best left to professional researchers who specialize in historic preservation. She stated that for this reason, neighborhood groups and community councils are encouraged to apply for funding, such as Community Development Block Grants, to hire such consultants to conduct these surveys.
The following is a summary of the staff report: Little trace remains of Sugar House's early history. The State Penitentiary is now Sugar House Park. The large farms that belonged to the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are now subdivisions, and old manufacturing centers are now defunct. Yet Sugar House has maintained a distinct identity, enhanced by its own business district and neighborhoods of bungalows and Victorian homes. Retaining this identity depends on the preservation of the community's historic properties, both commercial and residential, and on ensuring that new design respects the community's historic development and architectural patterns. A successful historic preservation program for Sugar House will stabilize residential neighborhoods and continue the revitalization of the business district.
The architecture of Sugar House is primarily residential, ranging from imposing Victorian residences to the spacious homes near the Salt Lake Country Club, from Craftsman bungalows to tracts of post-World War II cottages. The history of this residential architecture illustrates the desirability of Sugar House as a place to live and the convenience of its early transportation routes. The Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railroad provided a route from the city to Sugar House along 1100 East and helped open large tracts of land in the area for residences. Although the railroad suffered irreversible damages and was dismantled after the depression of 1893, numerous streetcar lines provided service to the southeastern part of the city, encouraging even more development. By 1911, the area bounded by 1300 South and 2100 South, between 600 East and 1300 East was built up to such an extent that it could no longer be considered suburban.
When Mr. Protasevich inquired if there were plans to make this area an historic district, Ms. Giraud said that no plans had been made, as yet.
Ms. Giraud introduced Ms. Melissa Anderson, Principal Planner in the City's Planning Division and the Sugar House Community Planner. Ms. Anderson referred to the Sugar House Master Plan updates that had been distributed to the members of the Commission. She used a briefing board to further describe the Sugar House community. Ms. Anderson encouraged comments from the Commission particularly the historic preservation chapter and in the commercial, (the "downtown" of Sugar House), business district zone.
Ms. Anderson presented an overall point of view of the Sugar House Master Plan update:
• Some members of the community are interested in a "step back" concept, which means a two-story building with a step back of four stories in core commercial area of 2100 South between 1100 East and McClelland Street;
• The community prefers to retain their single-family traditional neighborhood and to direct multi-family housing towards the business district;
• The business district encourages higher density zoning to accommodate multifamily housing and/or office space;
• Flag lots are a big issue in the Sugar House community and the community prefers not to have them. They feel that it detracts and makes a major shift in the character of the community when a roadway leads to the middle of a block. Staff has recommended some criteria for the evaluation of flag lots within the community;
• They would like to see more access routes to developments;
• Support for creating additional smaller neighborhood parks;
• Trail ways are a big issue. The master plan update references open space. Parleys Creek is the most viable to create a trail ways. Strong recommendation in the master plan update to support more trail ways;
• Re-evaluate some of the arterial plans;
• Encourage alternative modes of transit. All primary corridors provide all modes of transit. Support a light rail line coming into Sugar House which supports mixed use, medium and high development pattern to support a transit stop;
Expand the Sugar House business district. Clarify that the Master Plan encourages the same usage as the City's zoning ordinance;
• Community would like to look at design aspects and traffic calming for Westminster College;
• The community likes to have the public facilities such as the fire station, police station, and post office all in the town center and they would like to retain that arrangement; and
• Encourage annexation from 3300 South north.
Mr. Gordon made a comment about bringing back the "Wonder Bread" sign that used to be on top of what is now called the Wells Fargo Building.
Ms. Anderson said that like local historic districts, conservation districts is another tool intended to protect and enhance the character of a designated area by controlling development, including new construction, demolition, additions, or major alterations. She added that conservation districts can be used as a way of controlling inappropriate development in established neighborhoods that might not quality for historic district designation.
Ms. Anderson announced that the briefing to the Planning Commission would be on July 19th, the public hearing for Planning Commission would be on August 2nd, and come back with their final recommendation on August 16, 2001. She said that the next step would be the City Council.
Mr. Protasevich asked about the purpose for a master plan update. He said, "If it's not broken, why fix it? Why are you doing this?"
Ms. Anderson said that it was "broken" because the existing master plan was adopted about 15 years ago. She added that much of the information is out-of-date or incorrect.
Ms. Coffey said that the City Council has a policy of updating a master plan every ten years. She noted that the master plans become out-of-date due to changes in the neighborhood. Ms. Coffey stated that the Utah State law requires every city in the state of Utah to have master plans. She noted that Salt Lake City had decided to break up the city into seven different communities, each having its own master plan and updating those. Ms. Coffey said that the planners use the master plans to educate the public for development review, and to determine where the City wants to spend public money on infrastructure.
Mr. Parvaz expressed his concerns that the master plans interface with the other community plans.
Mr. Protasevich said that as an architect, his experience has been that it only gets worse, not better. He said that with all of the changes in the master plan, it gets more and more complicated to do something.
Mr. Parvaz said that the city cannot afford not to do anything because the population changes. He said that it was true, it is getting more difficult, but the issues are getting more complicated.
Ms. Giraud said that master plan updates are not as specific as zoning ordinance changes. She added that master plans are more goals and policies orientated.
Ms. Coffey said that if a development comes to the city, the planner looks at the master plan to see the direction of the community and the zoning districts usually reflects what the master plan calls for future land use. She said that master plans can also be updated to meet the needs of a specific development.
Ms. Coffey also said that sometime there are city-wide master plans developed for parks, transportation, and open space that have to tie in with the community master plans.
Ms. Anderson raised the question of the step back issue in the business corridor on 2100 South. She encouraged the Commissioners to comment on this issue.
Ms. Miller believed that four stories seemed too high on the north side of 2100 South because of the abutting residences immediately behind the business corridor. However, she said that she had less problems with the high density on the south side of 2100 South. Ms. Miller stated that to preserve the historic character of the business district, there should be a height limit of two stories.
Mr. Protasevich agreed that it would be too congested to increase the height limitation to four stories.
Mr. Parvaz also expressed his concerns about the narrow street and the congestion. He added that two stories is a good scale for pedestrian environment and four stories should not be brought up to the street.
There was some further discussion regarding the zoning and other related issues in this matter.
(Mr. Christensen excused himself at 6:54 P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.)
Ms. Anderson said that it will be a lively debate for the Planning Commission and the City Council. She said that there are some in the community that only want one or two stories all the way across the block.
(Mr. Gordon excused himself at 6:55 P.M. for the remainder of the meeting.)
Ms. Anderson asked that the Historic Landmark Commission provide a letter to the Planning Commission with the input of the members. She quickly added that the Historic Landmark Commission is not required to respond to these issues. Ms. Coffey said that she would E-mail the Commission members and ask them for their input, and find out if anyone has any comments that can be included in the staff report to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Anderson thanked the members of the Commission for their input.
Adjournment of the meeting.
As there was no other business, Mr. Parvaz asked for a motion to adjourn.
Ms. Miller so moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Protasevich seconded the motion. There was a unanimous vote of approval by the Commission members and the meeting adjourned at 7:00P.M.